posted on 2016-05-12, 09:05authored byNafeesa N. Dhalwani, Sheree L. Boulet, Dmitry M. Kissin, Yujia Zhang, Patricia McKane, Marie A. Bailey, Maria-Elena (Malena) Hood, Laila J. Tata
Objective: To compare risks of adverse perinatal outcomes between Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and naturally conceived singleton births using a dual design approach.
Study design: Discordant sibling and conventional cross-sectional general population comparison.
Setting: National ART Surveillance System from Michigan, Massachusetts and Florida (2000-2010) linked to birth records.
Patients: all singleton live births, conceived naturally or via ART
Interventions: None
Main outcome measures: Birthweight, gestational age, low birthweight, preterm delivery, small-for-gestational age (SGA), low Apgar score.
Results: 32,762(0.8%) of 3,896,242 singleton live births in the three states were conceived via ART. In 6,458 sibling pairs, ART conceived singletons were 33g lighter (Adjusted β=-33.40, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) -48.60,-18.21) and born half a day sooner (β=-0.58, 95% CI -1.02,-0.14) than singletons conceived naturally. The absolute risk of low birth weight and preterm birth was 6.8% and 9.7% respectively in the ART group and 4.9% and 7.9% in the non-ART group respectively. The odds of low birthweight were 33% higher (Adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) =1.33, 95% CI 1.13, 1.56) and 20% higher for preterm birth (aOR=1.20, 95% CI 1.07, 1.34). The odds of SGA and low Apgar score were not significantly different in both the groups (aOR=1.22, 95% CI 0.88, 1.68 and aOR=0.75, 95% CI 0.54, 1.05 respectively). Results of conventional analyses were similar, although the magnitude of risk was higher for pre-term birth (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.46, 1.56).
Conclusion: Despite some inflated risks in the general population comparison, ART remained associated with increased likelihood of low birthweight and preterm birth when underlying maternal factors were kept constant using discordant-sibling comparison.
History
Citation
Fertility & Sterility, 2016, 106 (3), pp. 710–716.e2
Author affiliation
/Organisation/COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND PSYCHOLOGY/School of Medicine
Version
AM (Accepted Manuscript)
Published in
Fertility & Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier on behalf of American Society for Reproductive Medicine
The file associated with this record is embargoed until 12 months after the date of publication. The final published version may be available through the links above.