Skip to main content
×
Home

A meta-analysis of neonatal health outcomes from oocyte donation

  • D. H. Adams (a1), R. A. Clark (a1), M. J. Davies (a2) (a3) and S. de Lacey (a1)
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Address for correspondence: D. H. Adams, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia. (Email: adam0072@flinders.edu.au)
References
Hide All
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, 232243.
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.
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, 330353.
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, 87104.
5. Talaulikar VS, Arulkumaran S. Reproductive outcomes after assisted conception. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2012; 67, 566583.
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, 138148.
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.
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, 550558.
9. Calkins K, Devaskar SU. Fetal origins of adult disease. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2011; 41, 158176.
10. Barker DJP. The Fetal and Infant Origins of Adult Disease. 1992. BMJ Books: London.
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, 13061311.
12. Tranquilli AL, Biondini V, Talebi Chahvar S, et al. Perinatal outcomes in oocyte donor pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26, 12631267.
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, 13871392.
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, 22682273.
15. Saito S, Shiozaki A, Nakashima A, Sakai M, Sasaki Y. The role of the immune system in preeclampsia. Mol Aspects Med. 2007; 28, 192209.
16. Sargent IL, Borzychowski AM, Redman CW. Immunoregulation in normal pregnancy and pre-eclampsia: an overview. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 13, 680686.
17. Ahn H, Park J, Gilman-Sachs A, Kwak-Kim J. Immunologic characteristics of preeclampsia, a comprehensive review. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2011; 65, 377394.
18. Schiessl B. Inflammatory response in preeclampsia. Mol Aspects Med. 2007; 28, 210219.
19. Backes CH, Markham K, Moorehead P, et al. Maternal preeclampsia and neonatal outcomes. J Pregnancy. 2011; 2011, 214365.
20. Challis JR, Lockwood CJ, Myatt L, et al. Inflammation and pregnancy. Reprod Sci. 2009; 16, 206215.
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, 319324.
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, 11921199.
23. Jayet PY, Rimoldi SF, Stuber T, et al. Pulmonary and systemic vascular dysfunction in young offspring of mothers with preeclampsia. Circulation. 2010; 122, 488494.
24. Himmelmann A. Blood pressure and left ventricular mass in children and adolescents: the Hypertension in Pregnancy Offspring Study. Blood Press Suppl. 1994; 3, 146.
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, 5372.
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, e1552e1561.
27. Wu CS, Sun Y, Vestergaard M, et al. Preeclampsia and risk for epilepsy in offspring. Pediatrics. 2008; 122, 10721078.
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.e1269.e10.
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, 11761180.
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, 548554.
31. Millis RM. Epigenetics and hypertension. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2011; 13, 2128.
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.
33. Skora D, Frankfurter D. Adverse perinatal events associated with ART. Semin Reprod Med. 2012; 30, 8491.
34. Barrington KJ, Janvier A. The paediatric consequences of assisted reproductive technologies, with special emphasis on multiple pregnancies. Acta Paediatr. 2013; 102, 340348.
35. Joanna Briggs Institute. Reviewers’ Manual: 2011 Edition. 2011. Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide: Adelaide, Australia.
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, 16451649.
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, 22102215.
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, 6570.
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, 483490.
40. Porreco RP, Schoolcraft CL, Schoolcraft WB. Pregnancy outcome following donor embryo replacement. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 1997; 6, 237240.
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, 640644.
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, 863871.
43. Sunderam S, Chang J, Flowers L, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2006. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2009; 58, 125.
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, 123.
45. Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Chen M, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2004. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2007; 56, 122.
46. Wright VC, Chang J, Jeng G, Macaluso M. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2003. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2006; 55, 122.
47. Wright VC, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, Jeng G. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance – United States, 2002. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2005; 54, 124.
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, 11441153.
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, 641653.
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, 798807.
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, 389398.
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, 697705.
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, 1321.
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, 11211128.
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, 956962.
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, 1524.
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, 1423.
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, 1320.
59. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97, 835842.
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.
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.
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, 26362640.
63. Corradetti A, Talebi Chahvar S, Biondini V, Giannubilo SR, Tranquilli AL. Maternal and fetal outcomes in oocyte donor pregnancies. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2012; 2, 290291.
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, 538542.
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, 119126.
66. Kuliev A, Cieslak J, Verlinsky Y. Frequency and distribution of chromosome abnormalities in human oocytes. Cytogenet Genome Res. 2005; 111, 193198.
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, 19051912.
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, 245250.
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, 653658.
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, 16371643.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease
  • ISSN: 2040-1744
  • EISSN: 2040-1752
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-developmental-origins-of-health-and-disease
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Adams supplementary material
Table S2

 Word (24 KB)
24 KB
WORD
Supplementary Materials

Adams supplementary material
Table S1

 Word (12 KB)
12 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 9
Total number of PDF views: 40 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 340 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 12th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.