ACOG Committee Opinion
Number 324, November 2005
(Reaffirmed 2007)


Committee on Obstetric Practice
Committee on Gynecologic Practice

Committee on Genetics

This document reflects emerging clinical and scientific advances as of the date issued and is subject to change. The information should not be construed as dictating an exclusive course of treatment or procedure to be followed. 


PDF Format

Perinatal Risks Associated With Assisted Reproductive Technology

Over the past two decades, the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) has increased dramatically worldwide and has made pregnancy possible for many infertile couples. The American Society for Reproductive Medicine defines ART as treatments and procedures involving the handling of human oocytes and sperm, or embryos, with the intent of establishing a pregnancy (1). By this definition, ART includes in vitro fertilization (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), but it excludes techniques such as artificial insemination and superovulation drug therapy.

Several studies have been conducted to describe and compare the obstetric outcome of pregnancies resulting from ART with those of pregnancies conceived without treatment. Some retrospective and prospective follow-up studies suggest that pregnancies achieved by ART are associated with an increased risk of prematurity, low birth weight, and neonatal encephalopathy and a higher perinatal mortality rate, even after adjusting for age, parity, and multiple gestation (2, 3). Even in studies limited to singleton ART pregnancies, the prematurity rate is twice as high, and the proportion of infants with low birth weight is three times as high as that of the general population (4, 5). A meta-analysis of 15 studies comprising 12,283 singleton infants conceived by IVF and 1.9 million spontaneously conceived singleton infants showed significantly higher odds of perinatal mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.2), preterm delivery (OR, 2.0), low birth weight (OR, 1.8), very low birth weight (OR, 2.7), and small for gestational age status (OR, 1.6) in IVF pregnancies, after adjusting for maternal age and parity (6).

It is difficult to determine the degree to which these associations are specifically related to the ART procedures versus any underlying factors within the couple, such as coexisting maternal disease, the cause of infertility, or differences in behavioral risk (eg, smoking). Many of the adverse obstetric outcomes associated with ART may actually be linked to infertility rather than the treatment for this disorder. Continued research is needed to examine possible confounding variables for these observations. Patients undergoing superovulation drug therapy alone, IVF alone, and IVF with ICSI should be examined as three distinct risk populations, and control populations should ideally consist of two separate groups—normal fertile couples and infertile couples who conceive without treatment.

Assisted reproductive technology has been associated with a 30-fold increase in multiple pregnancies compared with the rate of spontaneous twin pregnancies (1% in the general white population). The obstetric and neonatal risks associated with multiple gestation include preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, and operative delivery. Multifetal births account for 17% of all preterm births (before 37 weeks of gestation), 23% of early preterm births (before 32 weeks of gestation), 24% of low-birthweight infants (< 2,500 g), and 26% of very-lowbirth- weight infants (< 1,500 g) (7–10). In a large population-based cohort study in the United States from 1996 to 1999, the proportion of multiple births attributable to ovulation induction or ART was 33% (11), although the rate of high-order multiple gestations from ART decreased significantly between 1998 and 2001 (12). Methods to limit high-order multiple pregnancies include monitoring hormone levels and follicle number during superovulation and limiting transfer to fewer embryos in IVF cycles (12–14). Transferring two embryos can limit the occurrence of triplets in younger candidates who have a good prognosis without significantly decreasing the overall pregnancy rate (15, 16). The American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology have developed updated recommendations on the number of embryos per transfer to reduce the risk of multiple gestation (1). The multiple gestation risk of ART, unlike that of superovulation, can be effectively managed by limiting the number of embryos transferred. When considering how to minimize multiple gestation, ART can be viewed as the safer and more favorable approach compared with superovulation.

Informing couples of the obstetric risks as well as the socioeconomic consequences of multiple gestations may modify their decisions regarding the number of embryos to be transferred (17). Patients undergoing ART procedures should be counseled in advance regarding the option of multifetal pregnancy reduction to decrease perinatal risks if a highorder multiple pregnancy occurs. Because the intense motivation for a successful outcome and the substantial out-of-pocket cost of ART may increase patients' desire for the transfer of an excessive number of embryos, it is critical that couples be aware of the risk and associated morbidity of high-order multiple gestation.

Most retrospective and prospective follow-up studies of children born as a result of ART have provided evidence for congenital malformation rates similar to those reported in the general population (18–20). In contrast, an Australian study of 4,916 women found that the risk of one or more major birth defects in infants conceived with ART was twice the expected rate (8.6% for ICSI and 9.0% for IVF, compared with 4.2% in the general population) (21). As with other studies, the control group was not ideal because it did not include couples with infertility who conceived without ART. Prospective studies are needed to further define the risk of ART to offspring.

Male factor infertility is now recognized as an inherited disorder for some infertile couples. In vitro fertilization offers the opportunity to achieve pregnancy while increasing the couple's awareness of possible inherited disorders in their offspring. Genetic conditions can predispose to abnormal sperm characteristics that may be passed to male children. In addition, azoospermia is associated with congenital bilateral absence or atrophy of the vas deferens in men with gene mutations associated with cystic fibrosis. Congenital bilateral absence or atrophy of the vas deferens accounts for approximately 2% of all cases of male infertility (22, 23). Therefore, all patients with congenital bilateral absence or atrophy of the vas deferens and their partners considering IVF by sperm extraction procedure with ICSI should be offered genetic counseling to discuss testing for cystic fibrosis.

Approximately 10–15% of azoospermic and severely oligospermic (< 5 million/mL) males have microdeletions of their Y chromosome that can be passed on to their male offspring (24, 25). There is speculation that a deletion could potentially expand in successive generations; however, the reproductive and nonreproductive health implications of this possibility are unknown (26). Some studies have suggested a 1% increased risk for fetal sex chromosome abnormalities following ICSI conception (27–29), but others have yielded conflicting results (30). Subfertile men, with a higher proportion of aneuploid sperm, may have an increased risk of transmitting chromosomal abnormalities to their children (31). These men should be aware of the possible reproductive consequences in their male offspring and the options for prenatal diagnosis.

There is some concern that the micromanipulation of the early embryonic environment in IVF may result in imprinting errors. Genomic imprinting is an epigenetic phenomenon in which one of the two alleles of a subset of genes is expressed differentially according to its parental origin. Imprinting is established early in gametogenesis and maintained in embryogenesis. Recent case series have reported an overrepresentation of two syndromes associated with abnormal imprinting in IVF offspring— Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome and Angelman's syndrome (32, 33). Both of these conditions may be associated with severe learning disabilities, mental retardation, and congenital malformations. Because these conditions are so rare (1 in 100,000–1 in 300,000), large prospective studies of offspring conceived with ART would be necessary to confirm an increased risk (34). Currently, the risk of imprinting disorders with offspring conceived with ART is largely theoretical but warrants further investigation.

A growing body of evidence suggests an association between ART pregnancies and perinatal morbidity (possibly independent of multiple births), although the absolute risk to children conceived with IVF is low. There is observational evidence linking ART and chromosomal abnormalities following ICSI in severe male factor cases, and concerns have been raised about a possible relationship to genomic imprinting modifications. Given the large sample sizes required to firmly answer these questions, particularly for rare genetic disorders, no causal relationship can be established at this time. It is still unclear to what extent these associations are related to the underlying cause(s) of infertility versus the treatment. It would be prudent to acknowledge these possibilities and to counsel patients accordingly. The single most important health effect of ART for the offspring remains iatrogenic multiple fetal pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the effort toward lowering the risk of multiple gestation with ART.

References

  1. Guidelines on the number of embryos transferred. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril 2004;82 Suppl 1:S1–2.
  2. Badawi N, Kurinczuk JJ, Keogh JM, Alessandri LM, O'Sullivan F, Burton PR, et al. Antepartum risk factors for newborn encephalopathy: the Western Australian casecontrol study. BMJ 1998;317:1549–53.
  3. Ozturk O, Bhattacharya S, Templeton A. Avoiding multiple pregnancies in ART: evaluation and implementation of new strategies. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1319–21.
  4. Cetin I, Cozzi V, Antonazzo P. Fetal development after assisted reproduction—a review. Placenta 2003;24 Suppl B:S104–13.
  5. Schieve LA, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Macaluso M, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:1144–53.
  6. Jackson RA, Gibson KA, Wu YW, Croughan MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103: 551–63.
  7. Donovan EF, Ehrenkranz RA, Shankaran S, Stevenson DK, Wright LL, Younes N, et al. Outcomes of very low birth weight twins cared for in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network's intensive care units. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:742–9.
  8. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2003;52:1–113.
  9. Powers WF, Kiely JL. The risks confronting twins: a national perspective. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994;170: 456–61.
  10. Stevenson DK, Wright LL, Lemons JA, Oh W, Korones SB, Papile LA, et al. Very low birth weight outcomes of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, January 1993 through December 1994. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179:1632–9.
  11. Lynch A, McDuffie R, Murphy J, Faber K, Leff M, Orleans M. Assisted reproductive interventions and multiple birth. Obstet Gynecol 2001;97:195–200.
  12. Jain T, Missmer SA, Hornstein MD. Trends in embryotransfer practice and in outcomes of the use of assisted reproductive technology in the United States. N Engl J Med 2004;350:1639–45.
  13. Gleicher N, Oleske DM, Tur-Kaspa I, Vidali A, Karande V. Reducing the risk of high-order multiple pregnancy after ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins. N Engl J Med 2000;343:2–7.
  14. Licciardi F, Berkeley AS, Krey L, Grifo J, Noyes N. A two- versus three-embryo transfer: the oocyte donation model. Fertil Steril 2001;75:510–3.
  15. Staessen C, Janssenswillen C, Van den Abbeel E, Devroey P, Van Steirteghem AC. Avoidance of triplet pregnancies by elective transfer of two good quality embryos. Hum Reprod 1993;8:1650–3.
  16. Templeton A, Morris JK. Reducing the risk of multiple births by transfer of two embryos after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 1998;339:573–7.
  17. Grobman WA, Milad MP, Stout J, Klock SC. Patient perceptions of multiple gestations: an assessment of knowledge and risk aversion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185: 920–4.
  18. Bergh T, Ericson A, Hillensjo T, Nygren KG,Wennerholm UB. Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982–95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 1999;354:1579–85.
  19. Ericson A, Kallen B. Congenital malformations in infants born after IVF: a population-based study. Hum Reprod 2001;16:504–9.
  20. Wennerholm UB, Bergh C, Hamberger L, Lundin K, Nilsson L, Wikland M. Incidence of congenital malformations in children born after ICSI. Hum Reprod 2000;15:944–8.
  21. 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.
  22. Chillon M, Casals T, Mercier B, Bassas L, Lissens W, Silber S, et al. Mutations in the cystic fibrosis gene in patients with congenital absence of the vas deferens. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1475–80.
  23. Dork T, Dworniczak B, Aulehla-Scholz C, Wieczorek D, Bohm I, Mayerova A, et al. Distinct spectrum of CFTR gene mutations in congenital absence of vas deferens. Hum Genet 1997;100:365–77.
  24. Dohle GR, Halley DJ,Van Hemel JO, van den Ouwel AM, Pieters MH,Weber RF, et al. Genetic risk factors in infertile men with severe oligozoospermia and azoospermia. Hum Reprod 2002;17:13–6.
  25. Feng HL. Molecular biology of male infertility. Arch Androl 2003;49:19–27.
  26. Tournaye H. ICSI: a technique too far? Int J Androl 2003; 26:63–9.
  27. Bonduelle M, Aytoz A, Van Assche E, Devroey P, Liebaers I, Van Steirteghem A. Incidence of chromosomal aberrations in children born after assisted reproduction through intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998;13:781–2.
  28. Bonduelle M, Ponjaert I, Van Steirteghem A, Derde MP, Devroey P, Liebaers I. Developmental outcome at 2 years of age for children born after ICSI compared with children born after IVF. Hum Reprod 2003;18:342–50.
  29. In't Veld P, Brandenburg H, Verhoeff A, Dhont M, Los F. Sex chromosomal abnormalities and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet 1995;346:773.
  30. Loft A, Petersen K, Erb K, Mikkelsen AL, Grinsted J, Hald F, et al. A Danish national cohort of 730 infants born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) 1994–1997. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2143–8.
  31. Calogero AE, Burrello N, De Palma A, Barone N, D'Agata R, Vicari E. Sperm aneuploidy in infertile men. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;6:310–7.
  32. Cox GF, Burger J, Lip V, Mau UA, Sperling K, Wu BL, et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection may increase the risk of imprinting defects. Am J Hum Genet 2002;71: 162–4.
  33. DeBaun MR, Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Association of in vitro fertilization with Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome and epigenetic alterations of L1T1 and H19. Am J Hum Genet 2003;72:156–60.
  34. Niemitz EL, Feinberg AP. Epigenetics and assisted reproductive technology: a call for investigation. Am J Hum Genet 2004;74:599–609.

Copyright ©November 2005 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Requests for authorization to make photocopies should be directed to: Copyright Clearance Center 222 Rosewood Drive Danvers, MA 01923 (978) 750-8400 ISSN 1074-861X

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
409 12th Street, SW
PO Box 96920
Washington, DC 20090-6920

12345/98765

Perinatal risks associated with assisted reproductive technology. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 324. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106:1143–6.