Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing congenital anomalies after preimplantation genetic diagnosis

  • Papers From The International Working Group On Preimplantation Genetics
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Preimplantation genetic diagnosis is an exciting advance in prenatal diagnosis. However, the safety of embryo biopsy must be determined with respect to both pregnancy rate and cogenital anomalies.

Analysis: Too few pregnancies have been reported to allow meaningful inferences to be drawn, for which reason data on pregnancy losses and anomalies after conventional IVF were first reviewed. Loss rates are approximately 25%, and anomaly rates are not increased over that observed in the general population. Unfortunately, considerable methodological problems exist in published surveys: lack of proper controls, failure to take into account potential confounding variables, anomaly surveillance that is inconsistent with respect to the vigor with which anomalies are sought, inclusion or exclusion of minor anomalies, inclusion or exclusion of anomalies evident only on ultrasound, and even inclusion or exclusion of anomalies present in terminated pregnancies. We recommend prospective surveillance for major anomalies, defined as those causing death, major handicap or requiring surgery. Prospective surveillance ideally dictates collection of intake information at the time pregnancy is diagnosed, surveillance during pregnancy to exclude teratogenic influences, and systematic neonatal anomaly surveillance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Handyside AH, Lesko JG, Tarin JJ, Winston RML, Hughes MR: Birth of a normal girl after in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnostic testing for cystic fibrosis. N Engl J Med 1992;327:905–909

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu J, Lessens W, Silber SJ, Devroey P, Liebaers I, Van Steiteghem A: Birth after preimplantation diagnosis of the cystic fibrosis delta F508 mutation by polymerase chain reaction in human embryos resulting from intracytoplasmic sperm injected with epidiymal sperm. JAMA 1994;272:1858–1860

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Verlinsky Y, Handyside A, Grifo J, Munne S, Cohen J, Liebaers I, Levinson G, Arnheim N, Hughes M, Delhanty J: Preimplantation diagnosis of genetic and chromosomal disorders. J. Assist Reprod Genet 1994;11:236–243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Harper J, Handyside A: The current status of preimplantation diagnosis. Curr Opin Obstet Gyn 1994;4:143–149

    Google Scholar 

  5. Liu J, Lissens W, Van Broeckhoven C, Löfgren A, Camus M, Liebaers I, Van Steirteghem A: Normal pregnancy after preimplantation DNA diagnosis of a dystrophin gene deletion. Prenat Diagn 1995;15:351–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Seppala M: The world collaborative report on in vitro fertilization and embryo replacement: current state of the art in January 1984. Ann NY Acad Sci 1984;442:558–563

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cohen J, Mayaux MJ, Guihard-Moscato L: Pregnancy outcomes after in vitro fertilization. A collaborative study on 2342 pregnancies. Ann NY Acad Sci 1988;541:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  8. National Perinatal Statistics Unit and The Fertility Society of Australia: IVF and GIFT pregnancies, Australia and New Zealand, 1987, 1995

  9. Steer C, Campbell S, Davies M, Mason B, Collins W: Spontaneous abortion rates after natural and assisted conception. Br Med J 1989;299:1317–1318

    Google Scholar 

  10. Medical Research International, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), The American Fertility Society: In vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in the United States: 1990 results from IVF-ET Registry. Fertil Steril 1992;57:15–24

    Google Scholar 

  11. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine: Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1993 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril 1995;64:13–21

    Google Scholar 

  12. Andrews MC, Mausher SJ, Levy DL, Jones HW Jr, Carcia JE, Rosenwaks, Z, Jones GS, Acosta AA: An analysis of the obstetric outcome of 125 consecutive pregnancies conceived in vitro and resulting in 100 deliveries. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1986;1654:848–854

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hill GA, Bryan S, Herbert CM, Shah DM, Wentz AC: Complications of pregnancy in infertile couples: routine treatment versus assisted reproduction. Obstet Gynecol 1990;75:790–794

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wood C, Trounson A, Leeton JF, Renous PM, Walters WA, Buttery BW, Grimwade JC, Spensley JC, Yu VY: Clinical features of eight pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1982;38:22–29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Saunders DM, Lancaster P: The wider perinatal significance of the Australian in vitro fertilization data collection program. Am J Perinat 1989;6:252–255

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lancaster PAL: Congenital malformations after in vitro fertilization. Lancet 1987;2:1392–1393

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mills JL, Simpson JL, Rhoads GG, Graubard BI, Hoffman H, Conley MR, Lassman M, Cunningham G: Risk of neural tube defects in relation to maternal fertility and fertility drug use. Lancet 1990;336:103–104

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Morin NC, Wirth FH, Johnson DH, Frank LM, Presburg HJ, Van de Water VL, Chee EM, Mills JL: Congenital malformations and psychological development in children conceived by in vitro fertilization. J Pediatr 1989;115:222–227

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schattman G, Rosenwaks Z, Berkeley A, Davis O, Grifo J, Graft M, Noyes N, Cohen J: Congenital malformations in children born utilizing the assisted reproductive technologies.In Serono International Symposium on Genetics of Gametes and Embryos, June 2–5, 1994, New York, 1995, 36

  20. New York State Department of Health: Congenital malformations registry annual report. Statistical summary of children born in 1986 and diagnosed through 1988, 1990

  21. Beral V, Doyle P: Births in Great Britain resulting from assisted conception, 1978–87, MRC Working Party on Children Conceived by In Vitro Fertilization. Br J Med 1990;300:1229–1233

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rizk B, Doyle P, Tan SL, Rainsburg P, Betts J, Brinsden P, Edwards R: Perinatal outcome and congenital malformations in in vitro fertilization babies from the Bourne-Hallam group. Hum Reprod 1991;6:1259–1264

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Soussis I, Paraschos T, Packam D, Handyside A, Winston RML: Pregnancies resulting from biopsied embryos for genetic disease. J Assist Reprod Genet 1995;12:89S

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bonduelle M, Desmyttere S, Buysse A, Van Assche E, Schietecatte J, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC, Liebaers I: Prospective follow-up study of 55 children born after subzonal insemination and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1765–1769

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bonduelle M, Legein J, Willikens A, Van Assche E, Dekoninck P, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I: Follow-up study of children born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1995;10:54

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bonduelle M, Legein J, Derde MP, Buysse A, Schietecatte J, Wisanto A, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem A, Liebaers I: Comparative follow-up study of 130 children born after ICSI and 130 children born after IVF: Abstracts of the 10th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE, Brussels, 1994, p 38

  27. Wisanto A, Magnus M, Bonduelle M, Liu J, Camus M, Tournaye H, Liebaers I, Van Steirghem AC, Devroey P: Obstetric outcome of 424 pregnancies after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Hum Reprod (in press)

  28. Simpson JL, Mills JL, Holmes LB, Ober CL, Aarons J, Jovanovic L, Knopp RH: Low fetal loss rates after ultrasound-proved viability in early pregnancy. JAMA 1987; 258:2555–2557

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Guerneri S, Bettio D, Simoni G, Brambati B, Lanzani A, Fraccaro M: Prevalence and distribution of chromosome abnormalities in a sample of first trimester interval abortions. Hum Reprod 1987;2:735–739

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mills JL, Knopp RH, Simpson JL, Jovanovic-Peterson L, Metzger BE, Holmes LB, Aarons JH, Brown Z, Reed GF, Bieber FR, et al.: Lack of relation of increased malformation rates in infants of diabetic mothers to glycemic control during organogenesis. N Engl J Med 1988;318:671–676

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simpson, J.L., Liebaers, I. Assessing congenital anomalies after preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Assist Reprod Genet 13, 170–176 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02072540

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02072540

Key words

Navigation