Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

No difference in congenital anomalies prevalence irrespective of insemination methods and freezing procedure: cohort study over fourteen years of an ART population in the south of France

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate and compare the prevalence of congenital anomalies in babies and fetuses conceived after four procedures of assisted reproduction technologies (ART).

Methods

The prevalence of congenital anomalies was compared retrospectively between 2750 babies and fetuses conceived between 2001 and 2014 in vitro fertilization with standard insemination (IVF), IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), IVF with frozen embryo transfer (FET-IVF), and ICSI with frozen embryo transfer (FET-ICSI). Congenital anomalies were described according to European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (EUROCAT) classification. The parental backgrounds, biologic parameters, obstetric parameters, and perinatal outcomes were compared between babies and fetuses with and without congenital anomalies. Data were analyzed by the generalized estimating equation.

Results

Between 2001 and 2014, a total of 2477 evolutionary pregnancies were notified. Among these pregnancies, 2379 were included in the analysis. One hundred thirty-four babies and fetuses had a congenital anomaly (4.9%). The major prevalences found among the recorded anomalies were congenital heart defects, chromosomal anomalies, and urinary defects. However, the risk of congenital anomalies in babies and fetuses conceived after FET was not increased compared with babies and fetuses conceived after fresh embryo transfer, even when adjusted for confounding factors (p = 0.40).

Conclusions

There is no increased risk of congenital anomalies in babies and fetuses conceived by fresh versus frozen embryo transfer after in vitro fertilization with and without micromanipulation. Indeed, distribution of congenital anomalies found in our population is consistent with the high prevalence of congenital heart defects, chromosomal anomalies, and urinary defects that have been found by other authors in children conceived by infertile couples when compared to children conceived spontaneously.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet Lond. Engl. 1978;2:366.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Palermo G, Joris H, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Pregnancies after intracytoplasmic injection of single spermatozoon into an oocyte. Lancet Lond. Engl. 1992;340:17–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:156–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Nygren K-G, Finnström O, Källén B, Olausson PO. Population-based Swedish studies of outcomes after in vitro fertilisation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86:774–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brison DR, Roberts SA, Kimber SJ. How should we assess the safety of IVF technologies? Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27:710–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. EUROCAT—European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies. Number of cases and prevalence per 10,000 births of all anomalies, for all full member countries, from 1980–2012. 2015. http://www.eurocat-network.eu/accessprevalencedata/prevalencetables. Accessed 25 Apr 2016

  7. Boyd PA, Haeusler M, Barisic I, Loane M, Garne E, Dolk H. Paper 1: the EUROCAT network—organization and processes†. Birt Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2011;91:S2–15.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lancaster PA. Health registers for congenital malformations and in vitro fertilization. Clin Reprod Fertil. 1986;4:27–37.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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;21:437–43.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Bonduelle M, Wennerholm U-B, Loft A, Tarlatzis BC, Peters C, Henriet S, et al. A multi-centre cohort study of the physical health of 5-year-old children conceived after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization and natural conception. Hum. Reprod. Oxf. Engl. 2005;20:413–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Olson CK, Keppler-Noreuil KM, Romitti PA, Budelier WT, Ryan G, Sparks AET, et al. In vitro fertilization is associated with an increase in major birth defects. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:1308–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren K-G, Otterblad PO. Congenital malformations in infants born after in vitro fertilization in Sweden. Birt Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2010;88:137–43.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wen SW, Leader A, White RR, Léveillé M-C, Wilkie V, Zhou J, et al. A comprehensive assessment of outcomes in pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;150:160–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Milne E, de Klerk N, Bower C. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19:330–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wen J, Jiang J, Ding C, Dai J, Liu Y, Xia Y, et al. Birth defects in children conceived by in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1331–7. 4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wennerholm UB, Albertsson-Wikland K, Bergh C, Hamberger L, Niklasson A, Nilsson L, et al. Postnatal growth and health in children born after cryopreservation as embryos. Lancet Lond Engl. 1998;351:1085–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Källén B, Finnström O, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: risk for congenital malformations after different IVF methods. Birt. Defects Res. A. Clin. Mol. Teratol. 2005;73:162–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Belva F, Henriet S, Van den Abbeel E, Camus M, Devroey P, Van der Elst J, et al. Neonatal outcome of 937 children born after transfer of cryopreserved embryos obtained by ICSI and IVF and comparison with outcome data of fresh ICSI and IVF cycles. Hum. Reprod. Oxf. Engl. 2008;23:2227–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Aflatoonian A, Mansoori Moghaddam F, Mashayekhy M, Mohamadian F. Comparison of early pregnancy and neonatal outcomes after frozen and fresh embryo transfer in ART cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:695–700.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Pinborg A, Loft A, Aaris Henningsen A-K, Rasmussen S, Andersen AN. Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: the Danish National Cohort Study 1995-2006. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1320–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wennerholm U-B, Henningsen A-KA, Romundstad LB, Bergh C, Pinborg A, Skjaerven R, et al. Perinatal outcomes of children born after frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a Nordic cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum. Reprod. Oxf. Engl. 2013;28:2545–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:368–77. 9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Pinborg A, Henningsen AA, Loft A, Malchau SS, Forman J, Andersen AN. Large baby syndrome in singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET): is it due to maternal factors or the cryotechnique? Hum. Reprod. Oxf. Engl. 2014;29:618–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Pelkonen S, Hartikainen A-L, Ritvanen A, Koivunen R, Martikainen H, Gissler M, et al. Major congenital anomalies in children born after frozen embryo transfer: a cohort study 1995-2006. Hum. Reprod. Oxf. Engl. 2014;29:1552–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. De Mouzon J, Bachelot A, Spira A. Establishing a national in vitro fertilization registry: methodological problems and analysis of success rates. Stat Med. 1993;12:39–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. FIVNAT. Pregnancies and births resulting from in vitro fertilization: French national registry, analysis of data 1986 to 1990. FIVNAT (French In Vitro National). Fertil Steril. 1995;64:746–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Olivennes F, Schneider Z, Remy V, Blanchet V, Kerbrat V, Fanchin R, et al. Perinatal outcome and follow-up of 82 children aged 1-9 years old conceived from cryopreserved embryos. Hum. Reprod. Oxf. Engl. 1996;11:1565–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Olivennes F, Kerbrat V, Rufat P, Blanchet V, Fanchin R, Frydman R. Follow-up of a cohort of 422 children aged 6 to 13 years conceived by in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:284–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Epelboin S. Children born of ICSI. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod. 2007;36(Suppl 3):S109–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sagot P, Bechoua S, Ferdynus C, Facy A, Flamm X, Gouyon JB, et al. Similarly increased congenital anomaly rates after intrauterine insemination and IVF technologies: a retrospective cohort study. Hum. Reprod. Oxf. Engl. 2012;27:902–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Cassuto NG, Hazout A, Bouret D, Balet R, Larue L, Benifla JL, et al. Low birth defects by deselecting abnormal spermatozoa before ICSI. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28:47–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Agence de la Biomédecine. Le rapport annuel médical et scientifique 2014. 2014a. http://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/annexes/bilan2014/donnees/sommaire-proc.htm. Accessed 16 Mar 2016

  33. Boyer M, Meddeb L, Pauly V, Boyer P. Suivi des enfants de l’AMP: Expérience d’un centre français. Physiol. Pathol. Thérapie Reprod. Chez L’humain. Paris: Springer; 2011. p. 665–76.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Meddeb L, Boyer M, Pauly V, Tourame P, Rossin B, Pfister B, et al. Procedure used to follow-up a cohort of IVF children. Interests and limits of tools performed to longitudinal follow up for a monocentric cohort. Rev Dépidémiologie Santé Publique. 2011;59:97–105.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Anzola AB, Pauly V, Geoffroy-Siraudin C, Gervoise-Boyer M-J, Montjean D, Boyer P. The first 50 live births after autologous oocyte vitrification in France. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1781–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Merlet F. Regulatory framework in assisted reproductive technologies, relevance and main issues. Folia Histochem Cytobiol Pol Acad Sci Pol Histochem Cytochem Soc. 2009;47:S9–12.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Boyer P, Boyer M. Non invasive evaluation of the embryo: morphology of preimplantation embryos. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertil. 2009;37:908–16.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lie RT, Lyngstadaas A, Ørstavik KH, Bakketeig LS, Jacobsen G, Tanbo T. Birth defects in children conceived by ICSI compared with children conceived by other IVF-methods; a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34:696–701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wennerholm U-B, Söderström-Anttila V, Bergh C, Aittomäki K, Hazekamp J, Nygren K-G, et al. Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: a systematic review of outcome data. Hum. Reprod. Oxf. Engl. 2009;24:2158–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Davies MJ, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H, et al. Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1803–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Seggers J, de Walle HEK, Bergman JEH, Groen H, Hadders-Algra M, Bos ME, et al. Congenital anomalies in offspring of subfertile couples: a registry-based study in the northern Netherlands. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1001–10. e3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Agence de la Biomédecine. Le rapport annuel médical et scientifique 2014. 2014b. http://www.agence-biomedecine.fr/annexes/bilan2014/donnees/sommaire-proc.htm. Accessed 19 Jan 2017.

  43. Sazonova A, Källen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Wennerholm U-B, Bergh C. Neonatal and maternal outcomes comparing women undergoing two in vitro fertilization (IVF) singleton pregnancies and women undergoing one IVF twin pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:731–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Glinianaia SV, Rankin J, Wright C. Congenital anomalies in twins: a register-based study. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2008;23:1306–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Kalfa N, Paris F, Soyer-Gobillard M-O, Daures J-P, Sultan C. Prevalence of hypospadias in grandsons of women exposed to diethylstilbestrol during pregnancy: a multigenerational national cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2574–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Tournaire M, Epelboin S, Devouche E, Viot G, Le Bidois J, Cabau A, et al. Adverse health effects in children of women exposed in utero to diethylstilbestrol (DES). Therapie. 2016;71:395–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Birth defects and congenital health risks in children conceived through assisted reproduction technology (ART): a meeting report. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:947–58.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Grady R, Alavi N, Vale R, Khandwala M, McDonald SD. Elective single embryo transfer and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:324–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM), European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Kupka MS, D’Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2016;31:233–48.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Département de Santé Publique et Maladies Chroniques, Unité de recherche EA 3279, Faculté de médecine, Aix-Marseille Université, 27 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13005, Marseille, France

    Any Beltran Anzola, Vanessa Pauly & Roland Sambuc

  2. Service de Médecine et Biologie de la Reproduction, Hôpital Saint Joseph, 26 Boulevard du Louvain, 13008, Marseille, France

    Any Beltran Anzola, Debbie Montjean, Cendrine Geoffroy-Siraudin, Pierre Boyer & Marie-José Gervoise-Boyer

  3. Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille - Service d’information médicale, Hôpital de la Conception, 147 Boulevard Baille, 13005, Marseille, France

    Vanessa Pauly & Roland Sambuc

  4. Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille - Service des Maladies Infectieuses, Hôpital de la Conception, 147 Boulevard Baille, 13005, Marseille, France

    Line Meddeb

Authors
  1. Any Beltran Anzola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vanessa Pauly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Debbie Montjean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Line Meddeb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cendrine Geoffroy-Siraudin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roland Sambuc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Pierre Boyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marie-José Gervoise-Boyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Any Beltran Anzola.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No external funding was obtained for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

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. Data used to conduct the present study were obtained in accordance with French Bioethics Law. This study did not require ethic committee approval. For this type of study format, consent is not required.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary Fig. 1

Reliability rate of congenital anomalies data, blastocyst transfer rate, twin deliveries rate, and mean number of embryo transferred between 1994 and 2014 (GIF 184 kb)

High Resolution Image (TIFF 215 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

(DOCX 25 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beltran Anzola, A., Pauly, V., Montjean, D. et al. No difference in congenital anomalies prevalence irrespective of insemination methods and freezing procedure: cohort study over fourteen years of an ART population in the south of France. J Assist Reprod Genet 34, 867–876 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0903-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0903-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation