Risk of prematurity and infant morbidity and mortality by maternal fertility status and plurality
- 113 Downloads
To evaluate the risk of prematurity and infant mortality by maternal fertility status, and for in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies, by oocyte source and embryo state combinations.
Women in 14 States who had IVF-conceived live births during 2004–13 were linked to their infant’s birth and death certificates; a 10:1 sample of non-IVF births was selected for comparison; those with an indication of infertility treatment on the birth certificate were categorized as subfertile, all others were categorized as fertile. Risks were modeled separately for the fertile/subfertile/IVF (autologous-fresh only) group and for the IVF group by oocyte source-embryo state combinations, using logistic regression, and reported as adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
The study population included 2,474,195 pregnancies. Placental complications (placenta previa, abruptio placenta, and other excessive bleeding) and prematurity were both increased with pregestational and gestational diabetes and hypertension, among subfertile and IVF groups, and in IVF pregnancies using donor oocytes. Both subfertile and IVF pregnancies were at risk for prematurity and NICU admission; IVF infants were also at risk for small-for-gestation birthweight, and subfertile infants had greater risks for neonatal and infant death. Within the IVF group, pregnancies with donor oocytes and/or thawed embryos were at greater risk of large-for-gestation birthweight, and pregnancies with thawed embryos were at greater risk of neonatal and infant death.
Prematurity was associated with placental complications, diabetes and hypertension, subfertility and IVF groups, and in IVF pregnancies, donor oocytes and/or thawed embryos.
KeywordsEmbryo state Fertility status Infant morbidity Infant mortality Oocyte source Placental complications Prematurity
The authors wish to thank SART and all of its members for providing clinical information to the SART CORS database for use by patients and researchers. Without the efforts of their members, this research would not have been possible.
The authors also gratefully acknowledge the following State agencies for their assistance in conducting this study:
California Department of Public Health, Office of Health Information and Research
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Connecticut Department of Public Health
Florida Department of Health
Illinois Department of Public Health
Massachusetts Department of Public Health
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Division for Vital Records and Health Statistics
New Jersey Department of Health
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Bureau of Vital Statistics
New York State Department of Health, Bureau of Health Informatics, Vital Statistics Unit
North Carolina Department of Health
Ohio Department of Health, Bureau of Vital Statistics
Pennsylvania Department of Health, Bureau of Health Statistics and Research
Texas Department of State Health Services, Center for Health Statistics
Virginia Department of Health.
Source of funding
The project described was supported by grant R01CA151973 from the National Cancer Institute. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health, nor any of the State Departments of Health which contributed data.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Barbara Luke is a research consultant to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; all other authors report no conflict of interest.
- 1.Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Park MM. Births: final data for 2000. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2002;50(5):1–102.Google Scholar
- 2.Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2015. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2017;66(1):1–70.Google Scholar
- 3.Toner J, Coddington CC, Doody K, van Voorhis B, Seifer D, Ball GD, Luke B, Wantman E. SART & ART in the US: a 2016 update. Fertil Steril 2016 Sep 1; 106 (3):541–546.Google Scholar
- 4.Center for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2015 Assisted reproductive technology success rates: national summary report. Atlanta (GA): US Dept. of Health and Human Services; 2017.Google Scholar
- 21.Woolbright LA, Harshberger DS. The revised standard certificate of live birth: analysis of medical risk factor data from birth certificates in Alabama, 1988-92. Public Health Rep. 1995;110:59–63.Google Scholar
- 27.Martin JA, Wilson EC, Osterman MJK, Saadi EW, Sutton SR, Hamilton BE. Assessing the quality of medical and health data from the 2003 birth certificate revision: results from two states. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2013;62(2):1–20.Google Scholar
- 28.Heron M. Deaths: leading causes for 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018;67(6):1–77.Google Scholar
- 32.Luke B, Gopal D, Cabral H, Stern JE, Diop H. Adverse pregnancy, birth, and infant outcomes in twins: effects of maternal fertility status and infant gender combinations; the Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217:330.e1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Berg CJ, MacKay AP, Qin C, Callaghan WM. Overview of maternal morbidity during hospitalization for labor and delivery in the United States, 1993–1997 and 2001–2005. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 113:1075–1081.Google Scholar
- 41.Romundstad LB, Romundstad PR, Sunde A, von Düring V, Skjærven R, Vatten LJ. Increased risk of placenta previa in pregnancies following IVF/ICSI; a comparison of ART and non-ART pregnancies in the same mother. Hum Reprod 2006; 21:2353–2358.Google Scholar
- 42.Luke B, Stern JE, Kotelchuck M, Declercq E, Cohen B, Diop H. Birth outcomes by infertility diagnosis: analyses of the Massachusetts Outcomes Study of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (MOSART). J Reprod Med. 2015;60:480–90.Google Scholar
- 54.Germain A, Carvajal J, Sanchez M, Valenzuela G, Tsunekawa H, Chuaqui B. Preterm labor: placental pathology and clinical correlation. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:284–9.Google Scholar
- 65.Shih W, Rushford DD, Bourne H, Garrett C, McBain JC, Healy DL, et al. Factors affecting low birthweight after assisted reproduction technology: difference between transfer of fresh and cryopreserved embryos suggests an adverse effect of oocyte collection. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1644–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 69.Luke B, Brown MB, Spector LG. Validation of infertility treatment and assisted reproductive technology use on the birth certificate in eight States. (Research Letter) Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215:126–7. PMID:26945609, 127.Google Scholar