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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 7/2017

01-07-2017 | Assisted Reproduction Technologies

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

Authors: Any Beltran Anzola, Vanessa Pauly, Debbie Montjean, Line Meddeb, Cendrine Geoffroy-Siraudin, Roland Sambuc, Pierre Boyer, Marie-José Gervoise-Boyer

Published in: Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics | Issue 7/2017

Login to get access

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet Lond. Engl. 1978;2:366.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Brison DR, Roberts SA, Kimber SJ. How should we assess the safety of IVF technologies? Reprod BioMed Online. 2013;27:710–21.CrossRefPubMed
6.
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.CrossRef
8.
Lancaster PA. Health registers for congenital malformations and in vitro fertilization. Clin Reprod Fertil. 1986;4:27–37.PubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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. 4CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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. 9CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Epelboin S. Children born of ICSI. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod. 2007;36(Suppl 3):S109–13.CrossRef
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
32.
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.
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.
37.
Boyer P, Boyer M. Non invasive evaluation of the embryo: morphology of preimplantation embryos. Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertil. 2009;37:908–16.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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. e3CrossRefPubMed
42.
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.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Glinianaia SV, Rankin J, Wright C. Congenital anomalies in twins: a register-based study. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2008;23:1306–11.CrossRef
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRefPubMedCentral
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.CrossRefPubMed
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.
Metadata
Title
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
Authors
Any Beltran Anzola
Vanessa Pauly
Debbie Montjean
Line Meddeb
Cendrine Geoffroy-Siraudin
Roland Sambuc
Pierre Boyer
Marie-José Gervoise-Boyer
Publication date
01-07-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 1058-0468
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7330
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-0903-9

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 7/2017 Go to the issue

Editor’s Commentary

Telegraphing your telomere length to the next generation

Reproductive Physiology and Disease

Significantly lengthened telomere in granulosa cells from women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)

Reproductive Physiology and Disease

Telomere length is short in PCOS and oral contraceptive does not affect the telomerase activity in granulosa cells of patients with PCOS

Review

G-CSF and stem cell therapy for the treatment of refractory thin lining in assisted reproductive technology

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Could monopronucleated ICSI zygotes be considered for transfer? Analysis through time-lapse monitoring and PGS

Assisted Reproduction Technologies

Factors associated with a poor prognosis for the IVF-ICSI live birth rate in women with rAFS stage III and IV endometriosis