The impact of assisted reproductive technology treatments on maternal and offspring outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a review of systematic reviews

Joanna Melville M.B.B.S. , Aisling Stringer M.B.B.S. , Naomi Black M.B.B.S. , Siobhan Quenby Ph.D. , Stephen D. Keay M.D. , Anna L. David Ph.D. , Ephia Yasmin M.D. , Bassel H. Al Wattar Ph.D.
{"title":"The impact of assisted reproductive technology treatments on maternal and offspring outcomes in singleton pregnancies: a review of systematic reviews","authors":"Joanna Melville M.B.B.S. ,&nbsp;Aisling Stringer M.B.B.S. ,&nbsp;Naomi Black M.B.B.S. ,&nbsp;Siobhan Quenby Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Stephen D. Keay M.D. ,&nbsp;Anna L. David Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Ephia Yasmin M.D. ,&nbsp;Bassel H. Al Wattar Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.xfnr.2021.09.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments are commonly used to aid conception in subfertile couples. This study aimed to evaluate the risks of adverse maternal and offspring outcomes in singleton pregnancy conceived with different ART treatments and techniques.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence Review</h3><p>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and HTA until December 2020 for all systematic reviews evaluating adverse outcomes in pregnancies conceived with various ART techniques, autologous or donor gametes, and embryo development stages. We assessed review quality using the AMSTAR 2 tool risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from the top quality reviews for each of the outcomes of interest across the identified ART treatments and population subgroups.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We included 24 systematic reviews, which mostly reported on observational studies. Compared with spontaneous conception, ART pregnancies had a higher risk of placenta previa (RR, 3.71; 95% CI, 2.67–5.16), antepartum hemorrhage (RR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.86–2.38), preterm birth (PTB) (RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.59–1.83), very preterm birth (RR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.73–2.59), small for gestational age (SGA) (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.20–1.52), low birth weight (LBW) (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.49–1.75), and very low birth weight (VLBW) (RR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.84–2.43).</p><p>Frozen vs. fresh embryo transfer was associated with a lower risk of PTB (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84–0.97), SGA (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56–0.67), LBW (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67–0.77), and VLBW (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69–0.82). Embryo transfer at blastocyst vs. cleavage showed a higher risk of PTB (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01–1.20) and large for gestational age (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03–1.21) with a lower risk of SGA (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76–0.92).</p><p>Using donor vs. autologous oocytes increased the odds of PTB (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.33–1.86), LBW (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.10–3.41), and VLBW (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.22–1.54) as well as maternal complications, including postpartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.20–3.20), gestational diabetes (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03–1.56), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.17–3.18), and cesarean section (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.14–2.42).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Assisted reproductive technology treatments are associated with increased risks of adverse maternal and offspring outcomes, especially with donor oocytes. The characteristics of ART treatment should be incorporated into prenatal care planning to mitigate those risks.</p></div><div><h3>PROSPERO Registration</h3><p>CRD42020182612, registered March 9, 2020.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73011,"journal":{"name":"F&S reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F&S reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571921000207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments are commonly used to aid conception in subfertile couples. This study aimed to evaluate the risks of adverse maternal and offspring outcomes in singleton pregnancy conceived with different ART treatments and techniques.

Evidence Review

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and HTA until December 2020 for all systematic reviews evaluating adverse outcomes in pregnancies conceived with various ART techniques, autologous or donor gametes, and embryo development stages. We assessed review quality using the AMSTAR 2 tool risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) from the top quality reviews for each of the outcomes of interest across the identified ART treatments and population subgroups.

Results

We included 24 systematic reviews, which mostly reported on observational studies. Compared with spontaneous conception, ART pregnancies had a higher risk of placenta previa (RR, 3.71; 95% CI, 2.67–5.16), antepartum hemorrhage (RR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.86–2.38), preterm birth (PTB) (RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.59–1.83), very preterm birth (RR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.73–2.59), small for gestational age (SGA) (RR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.20–1.52), low birth weight (LBW) (RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.49–1.75), and very low birth weight (VLBW) (RR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.84–2.43).

Frozen vs. fresh embryo transfer was associated with a lower risk of PTB (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.84–0.97), SGA (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56–0.67), LBW (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.67–0.77), and VLBW (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69–0.82). Embryo transfer at blastocyst vs. cleavage showed a higher risk of PTB (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.01–1.20) and large for gestational age (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03–1.21) with a lower risk of SGA (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76–0.92).

Using donor vs. autologous oocytes increased the odds of PTB (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.33–1.86), LBW (OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.10–3.41), and VLBW (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.22–1.54) as well as maternal complications, including postpartum hemorrhage (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.20–3.20), gestational diabetes (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.03–1.56), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (OR, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.17–3.18), and cesarean section (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 2.14–2.42).

Conclusions

Assisted reproductive technology treatments are associated with increased risks of adverse maternal and offspring outcomes, especially with donor oocytes. The characteristics of ART treatment should be incorporated into prenatal care planning to mitigate those risks.

PROSPERO Registration

CRD42020182612, registered March 9, 2020.

辅助生殖技术治疗对单胎妊娠产妇和后代结局的影响:系统综述
目的:辅助生殖技术(ART)是不孕不育夫妇常用的辅助受孕技术。本研究旨在评估不同抗逆转录病毒治疗和技术对单胎妊娠的不良母婴结局的风险。我们检索了MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL和HTA,直到2020年12月,检索了所有评估使用各种ART技术、自体配子或供体配子和胚胎发育阶段妊娠不良结局的系统综述。我们使用AMSTAR 2工具风险比(RR)或优势比(or)对确定的ART治疗和人群亚组中每个感兴趣的结果进行最高质量评价,并使用95%置信区间(ci)来评估评价质量。结果我们纳入了24篇系统综述,其中大部分报道了观察性研究。与自然受孕相比,ART妊娠发生前置胎盘的风险更高(RR, 3.71;95% CI, 2.67-5.16),产前出血(RR, 2.11;95% CI, 1.86-2.38),早产(PTB) (RR, 1.71;95% CI, 1.59-1.83),非常早产(RR, 2.12;95% CI, 1.73-2.59),小于胎龄(SGA) (RR, 1.35;95% CI, 1.20-1.52),低出生体重(LBW) (RR, 1.61;95% CI, 1.49-1.75)和极低出生体重(VLBW) (RR, 2.12;95% ci, 1.84-2.43)。冷冻胚胎移植与新鲜胚胎移植相比,PTB的风险较低(RR, 0.90;95% ci, 0.84-0.97), sga (rr, 0.61;95% ci, 0.56-0.67), LBW (rr, 0.72;95% CI, 0.67-0.77)和VLBW (RR, 0.76;95% ci, 0.69-0.82)。囊胚移植与卵裂胚胎移植相比,PTB的风险更高(RR, 1.10;95% CI, 1.01-1.20),胎龄较大(RR, 1.12;95% CI, 1.03-1.21), SGA风险较低(RR, 0.84;95% ci, 0.76-0.92)。使用供体卵母细胞比使用自体卵母细胞增加了患PTB的几率(OR, 1.57;95% ci, 1.33-1.86), LBW (or, 1.94;95% CI, 1.10-3.41)和VLBW (OR, 1.37;95% CI, 1.22-1.54)以及产妇并发症,包括产后出血(OR, 1.96;95% CI, 1.20-3.20),妊娠期糖尿病(OR, 1.27;95% CI, 1.03-1.56),妊娠期高血压疾病(OR, 2.63;95% CI, 2.17-3.18)和剖宫产(OR, 2.28;95% ci, 2.14-2.42)。结论辅助生殖技术治疗与母体和后代不良结局的风险增加有关,尤其是供体卵母细胞。抗逆转录病毒治疗的特点应纳入产前护理计划,以减轻这些风险。普洛斯彼罗注册号crd42020182612,于2020年3月9日注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
F&S reviews
F&S reviews Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Urology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
61 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信