Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pediatrics
Published in: BMC Pediatrics 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Neonatal outcomes in pregnancies resulting from oocyte donation: a cohort study in Sweden

Authors: Evangelia Elenis, Gunilla Sydsjö, Alkistis Skalkidou, Claudia Lampic, Agneta Skoog Svanberg

Published in: BMC Pediatrics | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Pregnancies resulting through oocyte donation have been associated with increased risk for adverse outcomes for the mother, such as gestational hypertensive disorders. However, little is known about possible neonatal complications of such pregnancies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the neonatal health outcomes among singleton pregnancies in a population of relatively young and healthy oocyte recipients in Sweden, taking into account the medical indication leading to treatment.

Methods

This cohort study involved 76 women conceiving with donated oocytes, 149 age-matched nulliparous women conceiving spontaneously and 63 women conceiving after non-donor IVF. Participants were recruited during 2005–2008 and followed up until delivery. Data on neonatal outcomes were retrieved from the National Birth Medical Register and the medical records of oocyte recipients from seven Swedish University Hospitals with IVF clinics. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association of mode of conception and neonatal outcomes, adjusted for maternal age and BMI, gestational age and delivery by cesarean section.

Results

Infants conceived through oocyte donation had higher odds for premature delivery [OR 2.36, 95 % CI (1.02–5.45)], for being small for gestational age [OR 4.23, 95 % CI (1.03–17.42)] and having Apgar score below 7 at 5 min [OR 10.57, 95 % CI (1.21–92.20)] compared to spontaneously conceived infants. Similar trends were observed when comparing infants conceived through oocyte donation to those conceived by traditional IVF. Furthermore, donor oocyte infants had a lower mean birthweight and length compared to autologous oocyte neonates (p = 0.013); however no differences were noted among infants born at term. Neonatal outcomes were more favorable among women with diminished ovarian reserve compared to those with other indications for oocyte donation.

Conclusions

Infants conceived after oocyte donation in Sweden have higher odds of being born prematurely and having lower mean birthweight in comparison to non-donor infants.
It seems that these unfavorable neonatal outcomes are present despite the age, weight and health restrictions applied to recipients before oocyte donation treatment in Sweden.
Literature
1.
Kupka M, Calhaz-Jorge C, Castilla Alcala J, De Geyter C, De Mouzon J, D’Hooghe T, et al. Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Europe 2012. Preliminary results generated from European registers by ESHRE. In: 31st Annual Meeting of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Lisbon: Hum Reprod; 2015.
2.
Porreco RP, Harden L, Gambotto M, Shapiro H. Expectation of pregnancy outcome among mature women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(1):38–41.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Pecks U, Maass N, Neulen J. Oocyte donation: a risk factor for pregnancy-induced hypertension: a meta-analysis and case series. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108(3):23–31.PubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Stoop D, Baumgarten M, Haentjens P, Polyzos NP, De Vos M, Verheyen G, et al. Obstetric outcome in donor oocyte pregnancies: a matched-pair analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Malchau SS, Loft A, Larsen EC, Aaris Henningsen AK, Rasmussen S, Andersen AN, et al. Perinatal outcomes in 375 children born after oocyte donation: a Danish national cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(6):1637–43.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Van Dorp W, Rietveld AM, Laven JS, van den Heuvel-Eibrink MM, Hukkelhoven CW, Schipper I. Pregnancy outcome of non-anonymous oocyte donation: a case–control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;182:107–12.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Elenis E, Svanberg AS, Lampic C, Skalkidou A, Akerud H, Sydsjo G. Adverse obstetric outcomes in pregnancies resulting from oocyte donation: a retrospective cohort case study in Sweden. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15(1):247.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Masoudian P, Nasr A, De Nanassy J, Fung KF, Bainbridge SA, El Demellawy D. Oocyte donation pregnancies and the risk of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(3):328–39.
9.
Tranquilli AL, Biondini V, Talebi Chahvar S, Corradetti A, Tranquilli D, Giannubilo S. Perinatal outcomes in oocyte donor pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013;26(13):1263–7.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Sheffer-Mimouni G, Mashiach S, Dor J, Levran D, Seidman DS. Factors influencing the obstetric and perinatal outcome after oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(10):2636–40.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Wolff KM, McMahon MJ, Kuller JA, Walmer DK, Meyer WR. Advanced maternal age and perinatal outcome: oocyte recipiency versus natural conception. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):519–23.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Aziz MM, Guirguis G, Maratto S, Benito C, Forman EJ. Is there an association between assisted reproductive technologies and time and complications of the third stage of labor? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293(6):1193–6.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Clua E, Meler E, Rodriguez D, Coroleu B, Rodriguez I, Martinez F, et al. Obstetric and perinatal complications in an oocyte donation programme. Is it time to limit the number of embryos to transfer? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32(4):267–71.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Soderstrom-Anttila V, Tiitinen A, Foudila T, Hovatta O. Obstetric and perinatal outcome after oocyte donation: comparison with in-vitro fertilization pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(2):483–90.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Cobo A, Serra V, Garrido N, Olmo I, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):1006–15. e1004.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Levron Y, Dviri M, Segol I, Yerushalmi GM, Hourvitz A, Orvieto R, et al. The 'immunologic theory' of preeclampsia revisited: a lesson from donor oocyte gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(4):e381-385.CrossRef
17.
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.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Adams DH, Clark RA, Davies MJ, de Lacey S. A meta-analysis of neonatal health outcomes from oocyte donation. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2016;7(3):257–72.CrossRef
19.
Sydsjo G, Lampic C, Bladh M, Skoog Svanberg A. Relationships in oocyte recipient couples - a Swedish national prospective follow-up study. Reprod Health. 2014;11:38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Marino JL, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Rumbold A, Whitrow MJ, Giles LC, et al. Perinatal outcomes by mode of assisted conception and sub-fertility in an Australian data linkage cohort. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e80398.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
Cnattingius S, Ericson A, Gunnarskog J, Kallen B. A quality study of a medical birth registry. Scand J Soc Med. 1990;18(2):143–8.PubMed
22.
23.
24.
Marsal K, Persson PH, Larsen T, Lilja H, Selbing A, Sultan B. Intrauterine growth curves based on ultrasonically estimated foetal weights. Acta Paediatr. 1996;85(7):843–8.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Hagman A, Loft A, Wennerholm UB, Pinborg A, Bergh C, Aittomaki K, et al. Obstetric and neonatal outcome after oocyte donation in 106 women with Turner syndrome: a Nordic cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(6):1598–609.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Keegan DA, Krey LC, Chang HC, Noyes N. Increased risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension in young recipients of donated oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(4):776–81.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Ferraretti AP, Goossens V, de Mouzon J, Bhattacharya S, Castilla LA, Korsak V, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(9):2571–84.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zarek SM ME, DeCherney AH, Richter KS, Devine K, Browne PE, O'Brien JE. The effect of donor oocyte recipient obesity on live birth: an analysis of 3.922 shared donor oocyte assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(3):e4.CrossRef
29.
Van der Hoorn ML, Scherjon SA, Claas FH. Egg donation pregnancy as an immunological model for solid organ transplantation. Transpl Immunol. 2011;25(2–3):89–95.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Van der Hoorn ML, van Egmond A, Swings GM, van Beelen E, van der Keur C, Tirado-Gonzalez I, et al. Differential immunoregulation in successful oocyte donation pregnancies compared with naturally conceived pregnancies. J Reprod Immunol. 2014;101–102:96–103.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Gundogan F, Bianchi DW, Scherjon SA, Roberts DJ. Placental pathology in egg donor pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):397–404.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Andersson-Ellström A. Mödrahälsovård, Sexuell och Reproduktiv Hälsa [Prenatal care, sexual and reproductive health] (In Swedish). Stockholm: Swedish Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology; 2008.
33.
34.
Galliano D, Garrido N, Serra-Serra V, Pellicer A. Difference in birth weight of consecutive sibling singletons is not found in oocyte donation when comparing fresh versus frozen embryo replacements. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1411–8. e1413.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Kalra SK, Ratcliffe SJ, Coutifaris C, Molinaro T, Barnhart KT. Ovarian stimulation and low birth weight in newborns conceived through in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(4):863–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Neonatal outcomes in pregnancies resulting from oocyte donation: a cohort study in Sweden
Authors
Evangelia Elenis
Gunilla Sydsjö
Alkistis Skalkidou
Claudia Lampic
Agneta Skoog Svanberg
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pediatrics / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2431
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-016-0708-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Pediatrics 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Validating the Children’s Depression Inventory in the context of Rwanda

Case report

Central retinal artery occlusion and cerebral infarction associated with Mycoplasma pneumonia infection in children

Research article

Health outcomes and the transition experience of HIV-infected adolescents after transfer to adult care in Québec, Canada

Study protocol

Efficacy and safety of hepcidin-based screen-and-treat approaches using two different doses versus a standard universal approach of iron supplementation in young children in rural Gambia: a double-blind randomised controlled trial

Research article

How do parents experience support after the death of their child?

Research article

Nasal carriage of common bacterial pathogens among healthy kindergarten children in Chaoshan region, southern China: a cross-sectional study