Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:44:27.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A meta-analysis of neonatal health outcomes from oocyte donation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 November 2015

D. H. Adams ,
R. A. Clark ,
M. J. Davies  and
S. de Lacey
D. H. Adams*
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia
R. A. Clark
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia
M. J. Davies
Affiliation:
Robinson Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia
S. de Lacey
Affiliation:
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia
*
*Address for correspondence: D. H. Adams, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Donated oocytes are a treatment modality for female infertility which is also associated with increased risks of preeclampsia. Subsequently it is important to evaluate if there is concomitant increased risks for adverse neonatal events in donated oocyte neonates. A structured search of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Reviews was performed to investigate the perinatal health outcomes of offspring conceived from donor oocytes compared with autologous oocytes. Meta-analysis was performed on comparable outcomes data. Twenty-eight studies were eligible and included in the review, and of these, 23 were included in a meta-analysis. Donor oocyte neonates are at increased risk of being born with low birth weight (<2500 g) [risk ratio (RR): 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14–1.22, P-value (P)<0.00001], very low birth weight (<1500 g) (RR: 1.24, CI: 1.15–1.35, P<0.00001), preterm (<37 weeks) (RR: 1.26, CI: 1.23–1.30, P<0.00001), of lower gestational age (mean difference −0.3 weeks, CI: −0.35 weeks to −0.25 weeks, P<0.00001), and preterm with low birth weight (RR: 1.24, CI: 1.19–1.29, P<0.00001), when compared with autologous oocyte neonates. Conversely, low birth weight outcomes were improved in term donor oocyte neonates (RR: 0.86, CI: 0.8–0.93, P=0.0003). These negative outcomes remained significant when controlling for multiple deliveries. The donor oocyte risk rates are higher than those found in general ART outcomes, are important considerations for the counselling of infertile patients and may also influence the long term health of the offspring.

Keywords

donor conceptionmeta-analysisneonateoocyteoutcome
Type
Review
Information
Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease , Volume 7 , Issue 3: Themed Issue: Ibero-American DOHaD Society , June 2016 , pp. 257 - 272
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press and the International Society for Developmental Origins of Health and Disease 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hart, R, Norman, RJ. The longer-term health outcomes for children born as a result of IVF treatment: Part I – General health outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19, 232–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Marino, JL, Moore, VM, Willson, KJ, et al. Perinatal outcomes by mode of assisted conception and sub-fertility in an Australian data linkage cohort. PLoS One. 2014; 9, e80398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. 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, 330–353.Google Scholar
4. Pinborg, A, Wennerholm, UB, Romundstad, LB, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19, 87–104.Google Scholar
5. Talaulikar, VS, Arulkumaran, S. Reproductive outcomes after assisted conception. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2012; 67, 566–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. McDonald, SD, Han, Z, Mulla, S, et al. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009; 146, 138–148.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Helmerhorst, FM, Perquin, DA, Donker, D, Keirse, MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2004; 328, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Class, QA, Rickert, ME, Lichtenstein, P, D’Onofrio, BM. Birth weight, physical morbidity, and mortality: a population-based sibling-comparison study. Am J Epidemiol. 2014; 179, 550–558.Google Scholar
9. Calkins, K, Devaskar, SU. Fetal origins of adult disease. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2011; 41, 158–176.Google Scholar
10. Barker DJP. The Fetal and Infant Origins of Adult Disease. 1992. BMJ Books: London.Google Scholar
11. Batcheller, A, Cardozo, E, Maguire, M, DeCherney, AH, Segars, JH. Are there subtle genome-wide epigenetic alterations in normal offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies? Fertil Steril. 2011; 96, 1306–1311.Google Scholar
12. Tranquilli, AL, Biondini, V, Talebi Chahvar, S, et al. Perinatal outcomes in oocyte donor pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26, 1263–1267.Google Scholar
13. Klatsky, PC, Delaney, SS, Caughey, AB, et al. The role of embryonic origin in preeclampsia: a comparison of autologous in vitro fertilization and ovum donor pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116, 1387–1392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Salha, O, Sharma, V, Dada, T, et al. The influence of donated gametes on the incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 1999; 14, 2268–2273.Google Scholar
15. Saito, S, Shiozaki, A, Nakashima, A, Sakai, M, Sasaki, Y. The role of the immune system in preeclampsia. Mol Aspects Med. 2007; 28, 192–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Sargent, IL, Borzychowski, AM, Redman, CW. Immunoregulation in normal pregnancy and pre-eclampsia: an overview. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 13, 680–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Ahn, H, Park, J, Gilman-Sachs, A, Kwak-Kim, J. Immunologic characteristics of preeclampsia, a comprehensive review. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2011; 65, 377–394.Google Scholar
18. Schiessl, B. Inflammatory response in preeclampsia. Mol Aspects Med. 2007; 28, 210–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Backes, CH, Markham, K, Moorehead, P, et al. Maternal preeclampsia and neonatal outcomes. J Pregnancy. 2011; 2011, 214365.Google Scholar
20. Challis, JR, Lockwood, CJ, Myatt, L, et al. Inflammation and pregnancy. Reprod Sci. 2009; 16, 206–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Zetterström, K, Lindeberg, S, Haglund, B, Magnuson, A, Hanson, U. Being born small for gestational age increases the risk of severe pre-eclampsia. BJOG. 2007; 114, 319–324.Google Scholar
22. Geelhoed, JJ, Fraser, A, Tilling, K, et al. Preeclampsia and gestational hypertension are associated with childhood blood pressure independently of family adiposity measures: the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. Circulation. 2010; 122, 1192–1199.Google Scholar
23. Jayet, PY, Rimoldi, SF, Stuber, T, et al. Pulmonary and systemic vascular dysfunction in young offspring of mothers with preeclampsia. Circulation. 2010; 122, 488–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Himmelmann, A. Blood pressure and left ventricular mass in children and adolescents: the Hypertension in Pregnancy Offspring Study. Blood Press Suppl. 1994; 3, 1–46.Google Scholar
25. Davis, EF, Newton, L, Lewandowski, AJ, et al. Pre-eclampsia and offspring cardiovascular health: mechanistic insights from experimental studies. Clin Sci (Lond). 2012; 123, 53–72.Google Scholar
26. Davis, EF, Lazdam, M, Lewandowski, AJ, et al. Cardiovascular risk factors in children and young adults born to preeclamptic pregnancies: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2012; 129, e1552–e1561.Google Scholar
27. Wu, CS, Sun, Y, Vestergaard, M, et al. Preeclampsia and risk for epilepsy in offspring. Pediatrics. 2008; 122, 1072–1078.Google Scholar
28. Wu, CS, Nohr, EA, Bech, BH, et al. Health of children born to mothers who had preeclampsia: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 201, 269.e1–269.e10.Google Scholar
29. Kajantie, E, Eriksson, JG, Osmond, C, Thornburg, K, Barker, DJ. Pre-eclampsia is associated with increased risk of stroke in the adult offspring: the Helsinki birth cohort study. Stroke. 2009; 40, 1176–1180.Google Scholar
30. Mann, JR, McDermott, S, Bao, H, Hardin, J, Gregg, A. Pre-eclampsia, birth weight, and autism spectrum disorders. J Autism Dev Disord. 2010; 40, 548–554.Google Scholar
31. Millis, RM. Epigenetics and hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2011; 13, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. He, J, Zhang, A, Fang, M, et al. Methylation levels at IGF2 and GNAS DMRs in infants born to preeclamptic pregnancies. BMC Genomics. 2013; 14, 472.Google Scholar
33. Skora, D, Frankfurter, D. Adverse perinatal events associated with ART. Semin Reprod Med. 2012; 30, 84–91.Google ScholarPubMed
34. Barrington, KJ, Janvier, A. The paediatric consequences of assisted reproductive technologies, with special emphasis on multiple pregnancies. Acta Paediatr. 2013; 102, 340–348.Google Scholar
35. Joanna Briggs Institute. Reviewers’ Manual: 2011 Edition. 2011. Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide: Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
36. Gibbons, WE, Cedars, M, Ness, RB, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies Writing Group. Toward understanding obstetrical outcome in advanced assisted reproduction: varying sperm, oocyte, and uterine source and diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95, 1645–1649.Google Scholar
37. Zegers-Hochschild, F, Masoli, D, Schwarze, JE, et al. Reproductive performance in oocyte donors and their recipients: comparative analysis from implantation to birth and lactation. Fertil Steril. 2010; 93, 2210–2215.Google Scholar
38. 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, 65–70.Google Scholar
39. Söderström-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, 483–490.Google Scholar
40. Porreco, RP, Schoolcraft, CL, Schoolcraft, WB. Pregnancy outcome following donor embryo replacement. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 1997; 6, 237–240.Google Scholar
41. Friedman, F Jr, Copperman, AB, Brodman, ML, et al. Perinatal outcome after embryo transfer in ovum recipients. A comparison with standard in vitro fertilization. J Reprod Med. 1996; 41, 640–644.Google Scholar
42. 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, 863–871.Google Scholar
43. Sunderam, S, Chang, J, Flowers, L, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2006. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2009; 58, 1–25.Google Scholar
44. Wright, VC, Chang, J, Jeng, G, Macaluso, M, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2005. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2008; 57, 1–23.Google Scholar
45. Wright, VC, Chang, J, Jeng, G, Chen, M, Macaluso, M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2004. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2007; 56, 1–22.Google Scholar
46. Wright, VC, Chang, J, Jeng, G, Macaluso, M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2003. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2006; 55, 1–22.Google Scholar
47. Wright, VC, Schieve, LA, Reynolds, MA, Jeng, G. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2002. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2005; 54, 1–24.Google ScholarPubMed
48. Schieve, LA, Ferre, C, Peterson, HB, et al. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 103, 1144–1153.Google Scholar
49. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1997 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 2000; 74, 641–653.Google Scholar
50. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1996 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1999; 71, 798–807.Google Scholar
51. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1995 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1998; 69, 389–398.Google Scholar
52. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1994 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1996; 66, 697–705.Google Scholar
53. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1993 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1995; 64, 13–21.Google Scholar
54. American Fertility Society & Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1992 results generated from the American Fertility Society/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry. Fertil Steril. 1994; 62, 1121–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
55. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Fertility Society. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States and Canada: 1991 results from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology generated from the American Fertility Society Registry. Fertil Steril. 1993; 59, 956–962.Google Scholar
56. Medical Research International, Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Fertility Society. In vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in the United States: 1990 results from the IVF-ET Registry. Fertil Steril. 1992; 57, 15–24.Google Scholar
57. Medical Research International, Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Fertility Society. In vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in the United States: 1989 results from the IVF-ET Registry. Fertil Steril. 1991; 55, 14–23.Google Scholar
58. Medical Research International, Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology, American Fertility Society. In vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in the United States: 1988 results from the IVF-ET Registry. Fertil Steril. 1990; 53, 13–20.Google Scholar
59. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97, 835–842.Google Scholar
60. Nelson, SM, Lawlor, DA. Predicting live birth, preterm delivery, and low birth weight in infants born from in vitro fertilisation: a prospective study of 144,018 treatment cycles. PLoS Med. 2011; 8, e1000386.Google Scholar
61. Thapar, A, Harold, G, Rice, F, et al. Do intrauterine or genetic influences explain the foetal origins of chronic disease? A novel experimental method for disentangling effects. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7, 25.Google Scholar
62. 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, 2636–2640.Google Scholar
63. Corradetti, A, Talebi Chahvar, S, Biondini, V, Giannubilo, SR, Tranquilli, AL. Maternal and fetal outcomes in oocyte donor pregnancies. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2012; 2, 290–291.Google Scholar
64. Pados, G, Camus, M, Van Steirteghem, A, Bonduelle, M, Devroey, P. The evolution and outcome of pregnancies from oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1994; 9, 538–542.Google Scholar
65. Obradors, A, Rius, M, Daina, G, et al. Whole-chromosome aneuploidy analysis in human oocytes: focus on comparative genomic hybridization. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2011; 133, 119–126.Google Scholar
66. Kuliev, A, Cieslak, J, Verlinsky, Y. Frequency and distribution of chromosome abnormalities in human oocytes. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005; 111, 193–198.Google Scholar
67. Aye, M, Di Giorgio, C, De, Mo M, et al. Assessment of the genotoxicity of three cryoprotectants used for human oocyte vitrification: dimethyl sulfoxide, ethylene glycol and propylene glycol. Food Chem Toxicol. 2010; 48, 1905–1912.Google Scholar
68. Men, H, Monson, RL, Parrish, JJ, Rutledge, JJ. Detection of DNA damage in bovine metaphase II oocytes resulting from cryopreservation. Mol Reprod Dev. 2003; 64, 245–250.Google Scholar
69. Stachowiak, EM, Papis, K, Kruszewski, M, et al. Comparison of the level(s) of DNA damage using Comet assay in bovine oocytes subjected to selected vitrification methods. Reprod Domest Anim. 2009; 44, 653–658.Google Scholar
70. Malchau, SS, Loft, A, Larsen, EC, et al. Perinatal outcomes in 375 children born after oocyte donation: a Danish national cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99, 1637–1643.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Adams supplementary material

Table S1

Download Adams supplementary material(File)
File 12.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Adams supplementary material

Table S2

Download Adams supplementary material(File)
File 23.7 KB