Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 699–705

A meta-analysis of the impact of IVF and ICSI on major malformations after adjusting for the effect of subfertility

  • Alfred A. Rimm
  • Alyce C. Katayama
  • K. Paul Katayama
Assisted Reproduction Technologies



To estimate the effect of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on major malformation (MM) rate in ART offspring independent of the effect of subfertility on MM.




This meta-analysis is based on our previously published meta-analysis of observational studies evaluating the relationship between ART treatment and MM rates, as well as recent research by Zhu et al. to estimate the impact of subfertility alone on MM in subfertile couples conceiving spontaneously.


The overall odds ratio for MM in our original meta-analysis, in which all studies used apparently inappropriate control groups of “normal” populations, was 1.29 (95% CI 1.01–1.67). Here we attempted to estimate the risk of subfertility and used this estimate to perform an adjusted meta-analysis. Zhu et al. found that about 40% of the odds of MM was due to subfertility. When we took Zhu’s finding into account, the adjusted odds ratio in the meta-analysis was 1.01 (95% CI 0.82–1.23).


Our study suggests ART does not increase the risk of MM as much as previously reported. More research is needed to quantify the underlying risk of subfertility and separate it from the risk associated with ART. Physicians who counsel subfertile couples should recognize that previous studies of MM rates in ART patients probably overestimated the risk.


Subfertility and major malformations ART outcomes Meta-analysis IVF/ICSI outcomes 


  1. 1.
    Rimm AA, Katayama AC, Diaz M, Katayama KP. A meta-analysis of controlled studies comparing major malformation rates in IVF and ICSI infants with naturally conceived children. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21(12):437–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bowen JR, Gibson FL, Leslie GI, Saunders DM. Medical and developmental outcome at 1 year for children conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet. 1998;351:1529–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sutcliffe AG, Taylor B, Saunders K, Thornton S, Lieberman BA, Grudzinskas JG. Outcome in the second year of life after in-vitro fertilisation by intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a UK case-control study. Lancet. 2001;357:2080–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Palermo GD, Neri QV, Hariprashad JJ, Davis OK, Veeck LL, Rosenwaks Z. ICSI and its outcome. Semin Reprod Med. 2000;18:161–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wennerholm UB, Bergh C, Hamberger L, Lundin K, Nilsson L, Wikland M, et al. Incidence of congenital malformations in children born after ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:944–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ericson A, Källén B. Congenital malformations in infants born after IVF: a population-based study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:504–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Anthony S, Buitendijk SE, Dorrepaal CA, Lindner K, Braat DDM, den Ouden AL. Congenital malformations in 4224 children conceived after IVF. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:2089–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Bower C, Webb S. The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:725–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Isaksson R, Gissler M, Tiitinen A. Obstetric outcome among women with unexplained infertility after IVF: a matched case-control study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1755–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ludwig M, Katalinic A. Pregnancy course and health of children born after ICSI depending on parameters of male factor infertility. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:351–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merlob P, Fisch B. Neonatal outcome and congenital malformations in children born after IVF. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3004–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MRC Working Party, Rose G, Beral V, Davis JA, Edwards RG, Harper PS, et al. Births in Great Britain resulting from assisted conception. BMJ. 1990;300:1229–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Westergaard HB, Johansen AMT, Erb K, Andersen AN. Danish National In-Vitro Fertilization Registry 1994 and 1995: a controlled study of births, malformations and cytogenetic findings. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1896–902.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Souza SW, Rivlin E, Cadman J, Richards B, Buck P, Lieberman BA. Children conceived by in vitro fertilisation after fresh embryo transfer. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 1997;76(2):F70–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Verlaenen H, Cammu H, Derde MP, Amy JJ. Singleton pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: expectations and outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86:906–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sutcliffe AG, De Souza SW, Cadman J, Richards B, McKinlay IA, Lieberman B. Minor congenital anomalies, major congenital malformations and development in children conceived from cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:3332–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zádori J, Kozinszky Z, Orvos H, Katona M, Kaáli SG, Pál A. The incidence of major birth defects following in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20:131–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinborg A, Loft A, Rasmussen S, et al. Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 3438 IVF/ICSI and 10362 non-IVF/ICSI twins born between 1995 and 2000. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:435–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Place I, Englert Y. A prospective longitudinal study of the physical, psychomotor and intellectual development of singleton children up to 5 years who were conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection compared with children conceived spontaneously and by in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:1388–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wennerholm UB, Albertsson-Wikland K, Bergh C, et al. Postnatal growth and health in children born after cryopreservation as embryos. Lancet. 1998;351:1085–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reefhuis J, Honein MA, Schieve LA, Correa A, Hobbs CA, Rasmussen SA. Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the United States. The National Birth Defects Preventive Study. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:360–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rimm AA, Katayama AC, Katayama KP. ART and major structural birth defects in the United States. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1765.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saunders DM, Mathews M, Lancaster PAL. The Australian Register: current research and future role. Ann NY Acad Sci. 1988;541:7–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bhalla AK, Sarala G, Dhaliwal L. Pregnancy following infertility. Aust NZ Obstet Gynecol. 1992;32:249–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Joffe M, Li Z. Association of time to pregnancy and the outcome of pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:71–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henriksen TB, Baird DD, Olsen J, Hedegaard M, Secher NJ, Wilcox AF. Time to pregnancy and preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:594–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kovalevsky G, Rinaudo P, Coutifaris C. Do assisted reproductive technologies cause adverse fetal outcomes? Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1270–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhu JL, Basso O, Obel C, Bille C, Olsen J. Infertility treatment, and congenital malformations: Danish national birth cohort. BMJ 2006;doi:10.1136/
  29. 29.
    Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouson J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Revised Glossary of ART Terminology, 2009. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1520–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Draper ES, Kurinczuk JJ, Abrams KR, Clarke M. Assessment of separate contributions to perinatal mortality of infertility history and treatment: a case-control analysis. Lancet. 1999;353:1746–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Basso O, Olsen J. Subfecundity and neonatal mortality: longitudinal study within the Danish national birth cohort. BMJ doi:10.1136/bmj.38336.616806.8F (4 February 2005).
  32. 32.
    Basso O, Baird DD. Infertility and preterm delivery, birthweight, and Caesarean section: a study within the Danish National Birth Cohort. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:2478–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Park S, Mathur R, Smith GCS. Congenital anomalies after treatment for infertility. BMJ. 2006;333:665–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barid DD, Wilcox AJ, Kramer MS. Why might infertile couples have problem pregnancies. Lancet. 1999;353:1724–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Poikkeus P, Unkila-Kallio L, Vilska S, Repokari L, et al. Impact of infertility characteristics and treatment modalities on singleton pregnancies after assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(1):135–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kupka MS, Dorn C, Richter O, Felberbaum R, van der Ven H. Impact of reproductive history on in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome: evidence form the German IVF Registry. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(3):508–16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thum MY, Gafar A, Wren M, Faris R, Ogunyemi B, et al. Does egg-sharing compromise the chance of donors or recipients achieving a live birth? Hum Reprod. 2003;18(11):2363–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Boivin J, Schmidt L. Infertility—related stress in men and women predicts treatment outcome 1 year later. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1745–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Croen LA, Shaw GM. Young maternal age and congenital malformations: A population-based study. Am J Pub Health. 1995;85:710–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pellestor F, Anahory T, Hamamah S. Effect of maternal age on the frequency of cytogenetic abnormalities in human oocytes. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005;111(3–4):206–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sun Y, Vestergaard M, Christensen J, Zhu JL, Bech BH, Olsen J. Epilepsy and febrile seizures in children of treated and untreated subfertile couples. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:215–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reefhuis J, Honein MA, Schieve LA, Correa A, Hobbs CA, Rasmussen SA. Reply: ART and major structural birth defects in the USA. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:1766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    CDC. Update on overall prevalence of major birth defects—Atlanta, Georgia, 1978–2005. MMWR. 2008;57(1):1–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alfred A. Rimm
    • 1
  • Alyce C. Katayama
    • 2
  • K. Paul Katayama
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsCase Western Reserve University School of MedicineClevelandUSA
  2. 2.Health Law Group, Quarles & Brady LLPMilwaukeeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Advanced Institute of FertilityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations