The risk of birth defects among children born after vitrified blastocyst transfers and those born after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage embryo transfers
- 112 Downloads
To explore the risk of birth defects among children born after vitrified blastocyst transfers and those born after fresh and vitrified cleavage-stage embryo transfers.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted including infants born after fresh and vitrified day 3 embryo transfers and those born after vitrified day 5 or 6 blastocyst transfers from January 2005 through December 2016. The outcome measures included any birth defect, multiple birth defects and 13 individual categories of birth defects.
Any birth defect occurred in 1.15% of infants born after fresh day 3 embryo transfers, 1.75% of infants born after vitrified day 3 embryo transfers, 1.60% of infants born after vitrified day 5 blastocyst transfers and 1.10% of infants born after vitrified day 6 blastocyst transfers. There was no difference in the risk of birth defects between vitrified blastocyst-stage transfers and vitrified cleavage-stage transfers (including day 5 vs. day 3 and day 6 vs. day 3) among all births or in only singletons or twins. For infants born after cleavage-stage embryo transfers at day 3, there was no difference in the risk of birth defects between fresh embryo transfers and vitrified embryo transfers among all births or in only singletons or twins.
Transfer of vitrified day 5 or 6 blastocysts does not increase the risk of birth defects compared with vitrified day 3 embryos. However, randomized control trials and follow-up studies of the long-term outcome of children born after blastocyst-stage transfers are needed to confirm the clinical safety of extending embryo culture to the blastocyst stage.
KeywordsBirth defects In vitro fertilization Blastocyst transfer Cleavage-stage embryo transfer Frozen-thawed embryo transfer
We gratefully acknowledge the staff of the Department of Assisted Reproduction in the Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital for their contribution.
QQZ: Manuscript writing, data analysis; NLW: Data analysis; BW: Data collection; YW: Data collection; YPK: Project development.
This work was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant nos. 81571397, 31770989), the Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital Foundation of China (Grant no. JYLJ030), the Nature Science Foundation of Shanghai (Grant no. 16ZR1419500).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
All participants gave written informed consent for this research.
- 3.Chambers GM, Chughtai AA, Farquhar CM, Wang YA (2015) Risk of preterm birth after blastocyst embryo transfer: a large population study using contemporary registry data from Australia and New Zealand. Fertil Steril 104(4):997–1003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1130 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Osamu I, Ryuichiro A, Akira K, Atsuo I, Hidekazu S, David AG (2014) Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril 101(1):128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Chen H, Wang Y, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, Tian H, Cai R, Hong Q, Chen Q, Shoham Z, Kuang Y (2015) Comparison of live-birth defects after luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs. conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization and vitrified embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 103(5):1194–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.020 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Boulet SL, Kirby RS, Reefhuis J, Zhang Y, Sunderam S, Cohen B, Bernson D, Copeland G, Bailey MA, Jamieson MA, Jamieson DJ, Kissin DM (2016) Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects among liveborn infants in Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan, 2000–2010. JAMA Pediatr 170(6):e154934CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.Yan J, Huang G, Sun Y, Zhao X, Chen S, Zou S, Hao C, Quan S, Chen ZJ (2011) Birth defects after assisted reproductive tech -nologies in China: analysis of 15,405 ofspring in seven centers (2004–2008). Fertil Steril 95(1):458–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.08.024 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Papanikolaou EG, Kolibianakis EM, Tournaye H, Venetis CA, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P (2008) Live birth rates after transfer of equal number of blastocysts or cleavage-stage embryos in IVF. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 23(1):91–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dem339 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Calle A, Fernandez-Gonzalez R, Ramos-Ibeas P, Laguna-Barraza R, Perez-Cerezales S, Bermejo-Alvarez P, Ramirez MA, Gutierrez-Adan A (2012) Long-term and transgenerational effects of in vitro culture on mouse embryos. Theriogenology 77(4):785–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2011.07.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Svensson E, Ehrenstein V, Norgaard M, Bakketeig LS, Rothman KJ, Sorensen HT, Pedersen L (2014) Estimating the proportion of all observed birth defects occurring in pregnancies terminated by a second-trimester abortion. Epidemiology 25(6):866–871. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000163 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Rocheleau CM, Bertke SJ, Lawson CC, Romitti PA, Sanderson WT, Malik S, Lupo PJ, Desrosiers TA, Bell E, Druschel C, Correa A, Reefhuis J (2015) Maternal occupational pesticide exposure and risk of congenital heart defects in the National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol 103(10):823–833. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdra.2335 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar