Combined advanced parental age has an additive negative effect on live birth rates—data from 4057 first IVF/ICSI cycles

  • Nicole O. McPherson
  • Deirdre Zander-Fox
  • Andrew D. Vincent
  • Michelle Lane
Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine if there is an additive effect of combined advanced maternal and paternal age on pregnancy and live birth rates.

Methods

Retrospective data analysis of 4057 first cycles at a fertility centre between 2009 and 2013 was compiled. Donor, preimplantation genetic screening and double embryo transfer cycles were excluded. Main outcomes measured were clinical pregnancy, viable pregnancy, live birth and term birth.

Results

Logistic regression indicated strong negative associations for maternal ages exceeding 27 years with clinical pregnancies (p < 0.001), viable pregnancies (p < 0.001), live births (p < 0.001) and term births (p < 0.001). There was evidence of negative associations between paternal age and both viable pregnancies (p = 0.06) and live births (p = 0.04), such that the probability of pregnancy was 10% further reduced for women who were 35 years with a partner over 40 years vs. women aged 35 years with a partner under 30 years. There was evidence of an interaction between maternal age and the paternal age on term births (p = 0.02) such that advanced paternal age’s effect on the probability of a term birth was only evident in couples where the maternal age ranged between ~27 and 35 years.

Conclusions

There is an additive effect to pregnancy and live birth rates when both partners are of an advanced age, thus highlighting the need for pre-conception public health messaging and a combined approach to ART counselling assessing both parental ages in combination.

Keywords

Fertility Subfertility Ageing Sperm Oocyte 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Michelle Lane is a recipient of an NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship. Nicole McPherson is a recipient of an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship.

Authors’ roles and declaration

ML, NOM, and DZ devised the study. AV analysed the data, NOM interpreted the data, NOM wrote the manuscript and DZ and ML edited and approved the final version. All authors certify that they have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript being submitted. They warrant that the article is the authors’ original work, it has not received prior publication and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest; however, we do disclose that NOM, DZ and ML are all employees of Monash IVF Group.

Ethics statement

Institution review board approval to retrospectively analyse this data was obtained from the Repromed Scientific Advisory Board and the University of Adelaide Human Research Ethics Branch as per Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Ethical Guidelines. For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    ABS. Births, Australia, 2010. Canberra: Australian Bureau Of Statistics 2010, Contract No.: 3301.0.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australias health 2012. Australia's health series no. 13. Cat. no. AUS 156. Canberra: AIHW 2012. p. 628.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Macaldowie A, Wang Y, Chughtai A, Chambers G. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand 2012. Sydney: National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, the University of New South Wales; 2014.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crawford NM, Steiner AZ. Age-related infertility. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2015;42(1):15–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2014.09.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duncan FE, Hornick JE, Lampson MA, Schultz RM, Shea LD, Woodruff TK. Chromosome cohesion decreases in human eggs with advanced maternal age. Aging Cell. 2012;11(6):1121–4.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-9726.2012.00866.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hassold T, Hunt P. Maternal age and chromosomally abnormal pregnancies: what we know and what we wish we knew. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009;21(6):703–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0b013e328332c6ab.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilding M, Dale B, Marino M, di Matteo L, Alviggi C, Pisaturo ML, et al. Mitochondrial aggregation patterns and activity in human oocytes and preimplantation embryos. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(5):909–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2005. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2008;57(5):1–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belloc S, Hazout A, Zini A, Merviel P, Cabry R, Chahine H, et al. How to overcome male infertility after 40: influence of paternal age on fertility. Maturitas. 2014;78(1):22–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.02.011.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ford WC, North K, Taylor H, Farrow A, Hull MG, Golding J. Increasing paternal age is associated with delayed conception in a large population of fertile couples: evidence for declining fecundity in older men. The ALSPAC Study Team (Avon Longitudinal Study of Pregnancy and hildhood). Hum Reprod. 2000;15(8):1703–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mathieu C, Ecochard R, Bied V, Lornage J, Czyba JC. Cumulative conception rate following intrauterine artificial insemination with husband’s spermatozoa: influence of husband’s age. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(5):1090–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belloc S, Cohen-Bacrie P, Benkhalifa M, Cohen-Bacrie M, De Mouzon J, Hazout A, et al. Effect of maternal and paternal age on pregnancy and miscarriage rates after intrauterine insemination. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17(3):392–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kidd SA, Eskenazi B, Wyrobek AJ. Effects of male age on semen quality and fertility: a review of the literature. Fertil Steril. 2001;75(2):237–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Klonoff-Cohen HS, Natarajan L. The effect of advancing paternal age on pregnancy and live birth rates in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization or gamete intrafallopian transfer. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(2):507–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.01.035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de La Rochebrochard E, de Mouzon J, Thepot F, Thonneau P, French National IVFRA. Fathers over 40 and increased failure to conceive: the lessons of in vitro fertilization in France. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(5):1420–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.11.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thalluri V, Tremellen KP. Ultrasound diagnosed adenomyosis has a negative impact on successful implantation following GnRH antagonist IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3487–92.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dorland M, van Kooij RJ, te Velde ER. General ageing and ovarian ageing. Maturitas. 1998;30(2):113–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Steuerwald NM, Bermudez MG, Wells D, Munne S, Cohen J. Maternal age-related differential global expression profiles observed in human oocytes. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;14(6):700–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilding M, Di Matteo L, Dale B. The maternal age effect: a hypothesis based on oxidative phosphorylation. Zygote. 2005;13(4):317–23.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0967199405003382.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hamatani T, Falco G, Carter MG, Akutsu H, Stagg CA, Sharov AA, et al. Age-associated alteration of gene expression patterns in mouse oocytes. Hum Mol Genet. 2004;13(19):2263–78.  https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddh241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baird DT, Collins J, Egozcue J, Evers LH, Gianaroli L, Leridon H, et al. Fertility and ageing. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(3):261–76.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmi006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Krieg SA, Henne MB, Westphal LM. Obstetric outcomes in donor oocyte pregnancies compared with advanced maternal age in in vitro fertilization pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(1):65–70.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bartmann AK, Romao GS, Ramos Eda S, Ferriani RA. Why do older women have poor implantation rates? A possible role of the mitochondria. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21(3):79–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eichenlaub-Ritter U, Vogt E, Yin H, Gosden R. Spindles, mitochondria and redox potential in ageing oocytes. Reprod BioMed Online. 2004;8(1):45–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chang J, Boulet SL, Jeng G, Flowers L, Kissin DM. Outcomes of in vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis: an analysis of the United States Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance Data, 2011-2012. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(2):394–400.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pacella-Ince L, Zander-Fox DL, Lane M. Mitochondrial SIRT3 and its target glutamate dehydrogenase are altered in follicular cells of women with reduced ovarian reserve or advanced maternal age. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(7):1490–9.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu071.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pacella-Ince L, Zander-Fox DL, Lane M. Mitochondrial SIRT5 is present in follicular cells and is altered by reduced ovarian reserve and advanced maternal age. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2014;26(8):1072–83.  https://doi.org/10.1071/RD13178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kinare A. Fetal environment. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2008;18(4):326–44.  https://doi.org/10.4103/0971-3026.43848.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jenkins TG, Aston KI, Pflueger C, Cairns BR, Carrell DT. Age-associated sperm DNA methylation alterations: possible implications in offspring disease susceptibility. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(7):e1004458.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004458.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vagnini L, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Massaro FC, Pontes A, et al. The effects of male age on sperm DNA damage in an infertile population. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;15(5):514–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kumar K, Deka D, Singh A, Mitra DK, Vanitha BR, Dada R. Predictive value of DNA integrity analysis in idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss following spontaneous conception. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-012-9801-3.
  32. 32.
    Bakos HW, Thompson JG, Feil D, Lane M. Sperm DNA damage is associated with assisted reproductive technology pregnancy. Int J Androl. 2008;31(5):518–26.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2605.2007.00803.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gallagher JE, Vine MF, Schramm MM, Lewtas J, George MH, Hulka BS, et al. 32P-postlabeling analysis of DNA adducts in human sperm cells from smokers and nonsmokers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1993;2(6):581–5.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Brahem S, Mehdi M, Landolsi H, Mougou S, Elghezal H, Saad A. Semen parameters and sperm DNA fragmentation as causes of recurrent pregnancy loss. Urology. 2011;78(4):792–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.05.049.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thomson LK, Zieschang JA, Clark AM. Oxidative deoxyribonucleic acid damage in sperm has a negative impact on clinical pregnancy rate in intrauterine insemination but not intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(4):843–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.07.356.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Simon L, Murphy K, Shamsi MB, Liu L, Emery B, Aston KI, et al. Paternal influence of sperm DNA integrity on early embryonic development. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(11):2402–12.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schmid TE, Eskenazi B, Baumgartner A, Marchetti F, Young S, Weldon R, et al. The effects of male age on sperm DNA damage in healthy non-smokers. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(1):180–7.  https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Belloc S, Benkhalifa M, Cohen-Bacrie M, Dalleac A, Amar E, Zini A. Sperm deoxyribonucleic acid damage in normozoospermic men is related to age and sperm progressive motility. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(6):1588–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.02.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hammoud SS, Nix DA, Zhang H, Purwar J, Carrell DT, Cairns BR. Distinctive chromatin in human sperm packages genes for embryo development. Nature. 2009;460(7254):473–8.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08162.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    El Hajj N, Zechner U, Schneider E, Tresch A, Gromoll J, Hahn T, et al. Methylation status of imprinted genes and repetitive elements in sperm DNA from infertile males. Sex Dev. 2011;5(2):60–9.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000323806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jenkins TG, Aston KI, Cairns BR, Carrell DT. Paternal aging and associated intraindividual alterations of global sperm 5-methylcytosine and 5-hydroxymethylcytosine levels. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(4):945–51.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Milekic MH, Xin Y, O'Donnell A, Kumar KK, Bradley-Moore M, Malaspina D, et al. Age-related sperm DNA methylation changes are transmitted to offspring and associated with abnormal behavior and dysregulated gene expression. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;  https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2014.84.
  43. 43.
    Reik W. Stability and flexibility of epigenetic gene regulation in mammalian development. Nature. 2007;447(7143):425–32.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05918.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lord T, Aitken RJ. Fertilization stimulates 8-hydroxy-2′-deoxyguanosine repair and antioxidant activity to prevent mutagenesis in the embryo. Dev Biol. 2015;406(1):1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2015.07.024.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gawecka JE, Marh J, Ortega M, Yamauchi Y, Ward MA, Ward WS. Mouse zygotes respond to severe sperm DNA damage by delaying paternal DNA replication and embryonic development. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e56385.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056385.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sabban H, Zakhari A, Patenaude V, Tulandi T, Abenhaim HA. Obstetrical and perinatal morbidity and mortality among in-vitro fertilization pregnancies: a population-based study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(1):107–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-017-4379-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Younis JS, Ben-Ami M, Ben-Shlomo I. The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal. J Ovarian Res. 2015;8:76.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-015-0204-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hojnik N, Vlaisavljevic V, Kovacic B. Morphokinetic characteristics and developmental potential of in vitro cultured embryos from natural cycles in patients with poor ovarian response. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:4286528.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4286528.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole O. McPherson
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Deirdre Zander-Fox
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Andrew D. Vincent
    • 3
  • Michelle Lane
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.School of Medicine, Robinson Research Institute, Discipline of Obstetrics and GynaecologyUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.RepromedAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Freemasons Centre for Men’s HealthUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  4. 4.Monash IVF GroupRichmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations