Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:51:12.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FETAL AND MATERNAL CONSEQUENCES OF PREGNANCIES CONCEIVED USING ART

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2016

CATHERINE E. M. AIKEN  and
JEREMY C. BROCKELSBY
CATHERINE E. M. AIKEN*
Affiliation:
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, NIHR Cambridge Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, UK. Department of Fetal and Maternal Medicine, The Rosie Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
JEREMY C. BROCKELSBY
Affiliation:
Department of Fetal and Maternal Medicine, The Rosie Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
*
Catherine E. M. Aiken, Email: cema2@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Artificial reproductive technology (ART) was first introduced to clinical practice in the late 1970s1 and has subsequently resulted in approximately 5 million births worldwide2. Globally, the rates of assisted conceptions continue to rise3. In 2011, approximately 1.5% of all pregnancies in the US were conceived using ART4. Since its introduction, much interest has been generated regarding the effects of ART on the developing fetus and potential adverse impacts on the health of the mother. In particular, early studies suggested an increase in fetal genetic and structural anomalies, and a high risk of perinatal complications. As experience with pregnancies conceived using ART has increased worldwide and more data regarding the outcomes of ART-conceived pregnancies have been reported, many of the initial worries have been shown to be unfounded. However, concern still exists regarding whether any adverse fetal and maternal outcomes result from the use of this technology. Many studies have reported higher risks of fetal complications following the use of ART including an increase in perinatal mortality, even in singleton pregnancies5,6. However, interpretation of these data are far from simple and it is important to consider that observations of higher rates of complications do not equate to a causal relationship between adverse pregnancy outcomes and the use of ART7. There are multiple confounding factors that may account for these associations, many of which are difficult to control for in large-scale studies.

Type
Review Article
Information
Fetal and Maternal Medicine Review , Volume 25 , Issue 3-4 , November 2014 , pp. 281 - 294
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

REFERENCES

1. Steptoe, PC, Edwards, RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 2 (8085): 366.Google Scholar
2. Kissin, DM, Jamieson, DJ, Barfield, WD. Monitoring health outcomes of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2014; 371 (1): 91–3.Google Scholar
3. Ferraretti, AP, Goossens, V, de Mouzon, J, Bhattacharya, S, Castilla, JA, Korsak, V et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (9): 2571–84.Google Scholar
4. Sunderam, S, Kissin, DM, Crawford, SB, Folger, SG, Jamieson, DJ, Barfield, WD et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance–United States, 2011. MMWR Surveill Summ 2014; 63 (10): 1–28.Google Scholar
5. McDonald, SD, Murphy, K, Beyene, J, Ohlsson, A. Perinatel outcomes of singleton pregnancies achieved by in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2005; 27 (5): 449–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Jackson, RA, Gibson, KA, Wu, YW, Croughan, MS. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103 (3): 551–63.Google Scholar
7. Stern, JE, Luke, B, Tobias, M, Gopal, D, Hornstein, MD, Diop, H. Adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes associated with underlying diagnosis with and without assisted reproductive technology treatment. Fertil Steril 2015; 103 (6): 1438–45.Google Scholar
8. Kallen, B, Finnstrom, O, Nygren, KG, Olausson, PO. In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVF fertilization methods. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84 (3): 611–7.Google Scholar
9. Cobo, A, Serra, V, Garrido, N, Olmo, I, Pellicer, A, Remohi, J. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2014; 102 (4): 1006–15 e4.Google Scholar
10. Fernando, D, Halliday, JL, Breheny, S, Healy, DL. Outcomes of singleton births after blastocyst versus nonblastocyst transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (3): 579–84.Google Scholar
11. Pinborg, A, Loft, A, Aaris Henningsen, AK, 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 (4):1320–7.Google Scholar
12. Ishihara, O, Araki, R, Kuwahara, A, Itakura, A, Saito, H, Adamson, GD. Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (1): 128–33.Google Scholar
13. Grigorescu, V, Zhang, Y, Kissin, DM, Sauber-Schatz, E, Sunderam, M, Kirby, RS et al. Maternal characteristics and pregnancy outcomes after assisted reproductive technology by infertility diagnosis: ovulatory dysfunction versus tubal obstruction. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (4): 1019–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Kjerulff, LE, Sanchez-Ramos, L, Duffy, D. Pregnancy outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 204 (6): 558 e1–6.Google Scholar
15. Schieve, LA, Meikle, SF, Ferre, C, Peterson, HB, Jeng, G, Wilcox, LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2002; 346 (10): 731–7.Google Scholar
16. Raisanen, S, Randell, K, Nielsen, HS, Gissler, M, Kramer, MR, Klemetti, R et al. Socioeconomic status affects the prevalence, but not the perinatal outcomes, of in vitro fertilization pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (11): 3118–25.Google Scholar
17. Sazonova, A, Kallen, K, Thurin-Kjellberg, A, Wennerholm, UB, Bergh, C. Obstetric outcome in singletons after in vitro fertilization with cryopreserved/thawed embryos. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (5): 1343–50.Google Scholar
18. Carbone, IF, Cruz, JJ, Sarquis, R, Akolekar, R, Nicolaides, KH. Assisted conception and placental perfusion assessed by uterine artery Doppler at 11-13 weeks' gestation. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (3–4): 1659–64.Google Scholar
19. Korosec, S, Ban Frangez, H, Verdenik, I, Kladnik, U, Kotar, V, Virant-Klun, I et al. Singleton pregnancy outcomes after in vitro fertilization with fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer and incidence of placenta praevia. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 431797.Google Scholar
20. Prefumo, F, Fratelli, N, Soares, SC, Thilaganathan, B. Uterine artery Doppler velocimetry at 11-14 weeks in singleton pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29 (2): 141–5.Google Scholar
21. Salafia, CM, Yampolsky, M, Shlakhter, A, Mandel, DH, Schwartz, N. Variety in placental shape: when does it originate? Placenta 2012; 33 (3): 164–70.Google Scholar
22. Cai, LY, Izumi, S, Koido, S, Uchida, N, Suzuki, T, Matsubayashi, H et al. Abnormal placental cord insertion may induce intrauterine growth restriction in IVF-twin pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (5): 1285–90.Google Scholar
23. Gavriil, P, Jauniaux, E, Leroy, F. Pathologic examination of placentas from singleton and twin pregnancies obtained after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Pediatr Pathol 1993; 13 (4): 453–62.Google Scholar
24. Baulies, S, Maiz, N, Munoz, A, Torrents, M, Echevarria, M, Serra, B. Prenatal ultrasound diagnosis of vasa praevia and analysis of risk factors. Prenat Diagn 2007; 27 (3–4): 595–9.Google Scholar
25. Jauniaux, E, Englert, Y, Vanesse, M, Hiden, M, Wilkin, P. Pathologic features of placentas from singleton pregnancies obtained by in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 76 (1): 61–4.Google Scholar
26. Cipriano, LE, Barth, WH Jr., Zaric, GS. The cost-effectiveness of targeted or universal screening for vasa praevia at 18–20 weeks of gestation in Ontario. BJOG 2010; 117 (9): 1108–18.Google Scholar
27. Halliday, J, Oke, K, Breheny, S, Algar, E, Amor, DJ. Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome and IVF: a case-control study. Am J Hum Genet 2004; 75 (3): 526–8.Google Scholar
28. 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 (2): 324–31.Google Scholar
29. Hayashi, M, Nakai, A, Satoh, S, Matsuda, Y. Adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies may be related to maternal factors associated with infertility rather than the type of assisted reproductive technology procedure used. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (4): 922–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Yang, X, Li, Y, Li, C, Zhang, W. Current overview of pregnancy complications and live-birth outcome of assisted reproductive technology in mainland China. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101 (2): 385–91.Google Scholar
31. Qin, J, Wang, H, Sheng, X, Liang, D, Tan, H, Xia, J. Pregnancy-related complications and adverse pregnancy outcomes in multiple pregnancies resulting from assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Fertil Steril 2015; 103 (6): 1492–508.Google Scholar
32. Romundstad, LB, Romundstad, PR, Sunde, A, von During, V, Skjaerven, R, Vatten, LJ. Increased risk of placenta previa in pregnancies following IVF/ICSI; a comparison of ART and non-ART pregnancies in the same mother. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (9): 2353–8.Google Scholar
33. Healy, DL, Breheny, S, Halliday, J, Jaques, A, Rushford, D, Garrett, C et al. Prevalence and risk factors for obstetric haemorrhage in 6730 singleton births after assisted reproductive technology in Victoria Australia. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (1): 265–74.Google Scholar
34. Rombauts, L, Motteram, C, Berkowitz, E, Fernando, S. Risk of placenta praevia is linked to endometrial thickness in a retrospective cohort study of 4537 singleton assisted reproduction technology births. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (12): 2787–93.Google Scholar
35. Esh-Broder, E, Ariel, I, Abas-Bashir, N, Bdolah, Y, Celnikier, DH. Placenta accreta is associated with IVF pregnancies: a retrospective chart review. BJOG. 2011; 118 (9): 1084–9.Google Scholar
36. Farhi, J, Ben-Haroush, A, Andrawus, N, Pinkas, H, Sapir, O, Fisch, B et al. High serum oestradiol concentrations in IVF cycles increase the risk of pregnancy complications related to abnormal placentation. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21 (3): 331–7.Google Scholar
37. Van Assche, E, Bonduelle, M, Tournaye, H, Joris, H, Verheyen, G, Devroey, P et al. Cytogenetics of infertile men. Hum Reprod 1996; 11 (Suppl. 4):1–24; discussion 5–6.Google Scholar
38. Silber, SJ, Alagappan, R, Brown, LG, Page, DC. Y chromosome deletions in azoospermic and severely oligozoospermic men undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection after testicular sperm extraction. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (12): 3332–7.Google Scholar
39. Kurinczuk, JJ, Bhattacharya, S. Rare chromosomal, genetic, and epigenetic-related risks associated with infertility treatment. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014; 19 (4): 250–3.Google Scholar
40. Schreurs, A, Legius, E, Meuleman, C, Fryns, JP, D'Hooghe, TM. Increased frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in female partners of couples undergoing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2000; 74 (1): 94–6.Google Scholar
41. Lee, SH, Ahn, SY, Lee, KW, Kwack, K, Jun, HS, Cha, KY. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection may lead to vertical transmission, expansion, and de novo occurrence of Y-chromosome microdeletions in male fetuses. Fertil Steril. 2006; 85 (5): 1512–5.Google Scholar
42. Cox, GF, Burger, J, Lip, V, Mau, UA, Sperling, K, Wu, BL et al. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection may increase the risk of imprinting defects. Am J Hum Genet 2002; 71 (1): 162–4.Google Scholar
43. Manipalviratn, S, DeCherney, A, Segars, J. Imprinting disorders and assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (2): 305–15.Google Scholar
44. Bowdin, S, Allen, C, Kirby, G, Brueton, L, Afnan, M, Barratt, C et al. A survey of assisted reproductive technology births and imprinting disorders. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (12): 3237–40.Google Scholar
45. El Hajj, N, Haaf, T. Epigenetic disturbances in in vitro cultured gametes and embryos: implications for human assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (3): 632–41.Google Scholar
46. Fauque, P. Ovulation induction and epigenetic anomalies. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (3): 616–23.Google Scholar
47. Turan, N, Katari, S, Gerson, LF, Chalian, R, Foster, MW, Gaughan, JP et al. Inter- and intra-individual variation in allele-specific DNA methylation and gene expression in children conceived using assisted reproductive technology. PLoS Genet. 2010; 6 (3–4): e1001033.Google Scholar
48. Oliver, VF, Miles, HL, Cutfield, WS, Hofman, PL, Ludgate, JL, Morison, IM. Defects in imprinting and genome-wide DNA methylation are not common in the in vitro fertilization population. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97 (1): 147–53 e7.Google Scholar
49. Gomes, MV, Huber, J, Ferriani, RA, Amaral Neto, AM, Ramos, ES. Abnormal methylation at the KvDMR1 imprinting control region in clinically normal children conceived by assisted reproductive technologies. Mol Hum Reprod 2009; 15 (8): 471–7.Google Scholar
50. Fauser, BC, Devroey, P, Diedrich, K, Balaban, B, Bonduelle, M, Delemarre-van de Waal, HA et al. Health outcomes of children born after IVF/ICSI: a review of current expert opinion and literature. Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 28 (2): 162–82.Google Scholar
51. 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. 2012; 27 (3): 902–9.Google Scholar
52. Olson, CK, Keppler-Noreuil, KM, Romitti, PA, Budelier, WT, Ryan, G, Sparks, AE et al. In vitro fertilization is associated with an increase in major birth defects. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84 (5): 1308–15.Google Scholar
53. Bonduelle, M, Wennerholm, UB, 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. 2005; 20 (2): 413–9.Google Scholar
54. Yan, J, Huang, G, Sun, Y, Zhao, X, Chen, S, Zou, S et al. Birth defects after assisted reproductive technologies in China: analysis of 15,405 offspring in seven centers (2004 to 2008). Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (1): 458–60.Google Scholar
55. Picaud, JC, Chalies, S, Combes, C, Mercier, G, Dechaud, H, Cambonie, G. Neonatal mortality and morbidity in preterm infants born from assisted reproductive technologies. Acta Paediatr 2012; 101 (8): 846–51.Google Scholar
56. 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 (6): 1331–7 e1–4.Google Scholar
57. Hansen, M, Bower, C, Milne, E, de Klerk, N, Kurinczuk, JJ. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects–a systematic review. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (2): 328–38.Google Scholar
58. 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 (12): 437–43.Google Scholar
59. Zhu, JL, Basso, O, Obel, C, Bille, C, Olsen, J. Infertility, infertility treatment, and congenital malformations: danish national birth cohort. BMJ. 2006; 333 (7570): 679.Google Scholar
60. Rimm, AA, Katayama, AC, Katayama, KP. A meta-analysis of the impact of IVF and ICSI on major malformations after adjusting for the effect of subfertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 2011; 28 (8): 699–705.Google Scholar
61. 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 (19): 1803–13.Google Scholar
62. 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 2008; 23 (10): 2227–38.Google Scholar
63. Aston, KI, Peterson, CM, Carrell, DT. Monozygotic twinning associated with assisted reproductive technologies: a review. Reproduction. 2008; 136 (4): 377–86.Google Scholar
64. Nelissen, EC, Dumoulin, JC, Busato, F, Ponger, L, Eijssen, LM, Evers, JL et al. Altered gene expression in human placentas after IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29 (12): 2821–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
65. Ishihara, O, Adamson, GD, Dyer, S, de Mouzon, J, Nygren, KG, Sullivan, EA et al. International committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technologies: world report on assisted reproductive technologies, 2007. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103 (2): 402–13 e11.Google Scholar
66. Pandey, S, Shetty, A, Hamilton, M, Bhattacharya, S, Maheshwari, A. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 18 (5): 485–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
67. Cooper, AR, O'Neill, KE, Allsworth, JE, Jungheim, ES, Odibo, AO, Gray, DL et al. Smaller fetal size in singletons after infertility therapies: the influence of technology and the underlying infertility. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (5): 1100–6.Google Scholar
68. Bergh, T, Ericson, A, Hillensjo, T, Nygren, KG, Wennerholm, UB. Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982-95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 1999; 354 (9190): 1579–85.Google Scholar
69. Romundstad, LB, Romundstad, PR, Sunde, A, von During, V, Skjaerven, R, Gunnell, D et al. Effects of technology or maternal factors on perinatal outcome after assisted fertilisation: a population-based cohort study. Lancet 2008; 372 (9640): 737–43.Google Scholar
70. Nakashima, A, Araki, R, Tani, H, Ishihara, O, Kuwahara, A, Irahara, M et al. Implications of assisted reproductive technologies on term singleton birth weight: an analysis of 25,777 children in the national assisted reproduction registry of Japan. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (2): 450–5.Google Scholar
71. 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 (2): 368–77 e1–9.Google Scholar
72. 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 (7434): 261.Google Scholar
73. Draper, ES, Kurinczuk, JJ, Abrams, KR, Clarke, M. Assessment of separate contributions to perinatal mortality of infertility history and treatment: a case-control analysis. Lancet 1999; 353 (9166): 1746–9.Google Scholar
74. McGovern, PG, Llorens, AJ, Skurnick, JH, Weiss, G, Goldsmith, LT. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer or gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2004; 82 (6): 1514–20.Google Scholar
75. Caserta, D, Bordi, G, Stegagno, M, Filippini, F, Podagrosi, M, Roselli, D et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in spontaneous versus assisted conception twin pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 174: 64–9.Google Scholar
76. Henriksen, TB, Baird, DD, Olsen, J, Hedegaard, M, Secher, NJ, Wilcox, AJ. Time to pregnancy and preterm delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89 (4): 594–9.Google Scholar
77. Chauhan, SP, Scardo, JA, Hayes, E, Abuhamad, AZ, Berghella, V. Twins: prevalence, problems, and preterm births. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 203 (4): 305–15.Google Scholar
78. Nyboe, AA, Goossens, V, Bhattacharya, S, Ferraretti, AP, Kupka, MS, de Mouzon, J et al. Assisted reproductive technology and intrauterine inseminations in Europe, 2005: results generated from European registers by ESHRE: ESHRE. The European IVF Monitoring Programme (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (6): 1267–87.Google Scholar
79. Ben-Ami, I, Edel, Y, Barel, O, Vaknin, Z, Herman, A, Maymon, R. Do assisted conception twins have an increased risk for anencephaly? Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (12): 3466–71.Google Scholar
80. Hansen, M, Colvin, L, Petterson, B, Kurinczuk, JJ, de Klerk, N, Bower, C. Twins born following assisted reproductive technology: perinatal outcome and admission to hospital. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (9): 2321–31.Google Scholar
81. Adler-Levy, Y, Lunenfeld, E, Levy, A. Obstetric outcome of twin pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization and ovulation induction compared with those conceived spontaneously. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 133 (2): 173–8.Google Scholar
82. McDonald, SD, Han, Z, Mulla, S, Ohlsson, A, Beyene, J, Murphy, KE et al. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization twins: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 148 (2): 105–13.Google Scholar
83. Chaveeva, P, Carbone, IF, Syngelaki, A, Akolekar, R, Nicolaides, KH. Contribution of method of conception on pregnancy outcome after the 11-13 weeks scan. Diagn Ther 2011; 30 (1): 9–22.Google Scholar
84. Moise, J, Laor, A, Armon, Y, Gur, I, Gale, R. The outcome of twin pregnancies after IVF. Hum Reprod 1998; 13 (6): 1702–5.Google Scholar
85. Olivennes, F, Kadhel, P, Rufat, P, Fanchin, R, Fernandez, H, Frydman, R. Perinatal outcome of twin pregnancies obtained after in vitro fertilization: comparison with twin pregnancies obtained spontaneously or after ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 1996; 66 (1): 105–9.Google Scholar
86. Vasario, E, Borgarello, V, Bossotti, C, Libanori, E, Biolcati, M, Arduino, S et al. IVF twins have similar obstetric and neonatal outcome as spontaneously conceived twins: a prospective follow-up study. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21 (3): 422–8.Google Scholar
87. Hack, KE, Derks, JB, Elias, SG, Franx, A, Roos, EJ, Voerman, SK et al. Increased perinatal mortality and morbidity in monochorionic versus dichorionic twin pregnancies: clinical implications of a large Dutch cohort study. BJOG 2008; 115 (1): 58–67.Google Scholar
88. Pinborg, A. IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11 (6): 575–93.Google Scholar
89. Chibber, R, Fouda, M, Shishtawy, W, Al-Dossary, M, Al-Hijji, J, Amen, A et al. Maternal and neonatal outcome in triplet, quadruplet and quintuplet gestations following ART: a 11-year study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 288 (4): 759–67.Google Scholar
90. Shiva, M, Mohammadi Yeganeh, L, Mirzaagha, E, Chehrazi, M, Bagheri Lankarani, N. Comparison of the outcomes between reduced and nonreduced triplet pregnancies achieved by Assisted Reproductive Technology. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2014; 54 (5): 424–7.Google Scholar
91. Kaufman, GE, Malone, FD, Harvey-Wilkes, KB, Chelmow, D, Penzias, AS, D'Alton, ME. Neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with triplet pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91 (3): 342–8.Google Scholar
92. Boulot, P, Vignal, J, Vergnes, C, Dechaud, H, Faure, JM, Hedon, B. Multifetal reduction of triplets to twins: a prospective comparison of pregnancy outcome. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (3–4): 1619–23.Google Scholar
93. American College of O, Gynecologists. ACOG Committee opinion no. 553: multifetal pregnancy reduction. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121 (2 Pt 1): 405–10.Google Scholar
94. Shah, V, Alwassia, H, Shah, K, Yoon, W, Shah, P. Neonatal outcomes among multiple births </= 32 weeks gestational age: does mode of conception have an impact? A cohort study. BMC Pediatr 2011; 11: 54.Google Scholar
95. Fitzsimmons, BP, Bebbington, MW, Fluker, MR. Perinatal and neonatal outcomes in multiple gestations: assisted reproduction versus spontaneous conception. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998; 179 (5): 1162–7.Google Scholar
96. Morency, AM, Shah, PS, Seaward, PG, Whittle, W, Murphy, KE. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes of triplet births - spontaneous versus assisted reproductive technology conception. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (6): 938–43.Google Scholar
97. Johnson, JA, Tough, S, Society of O, Gynaecologists of C. Delayed child-bearing. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012; 34 (1): 80–93.Google Scholar
98. Ashrafi, M, Gosili, R, Hosseini, R, Arabipoor, A, Ahmadi, J, Chehrazi, M. Risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 176: 149–52.Google Scholar
99. Rizzo, G, Aiello, E, Pietrolucci, ME, Arduini, D. Placental volume and uterine artery doppler evaluation at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks of gestation in pregnancies conceived with in vitro fertilization: comparison between autologous and donor oocyte recipients. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015.Google Scholar
100. Opdahl, S, Henningsen, AA, Tiitinen, A, Bergh, C, Pinborg, A, Romundstad, PR et al. Risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancies following assisted reproductive technology: a cohort study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod. 2015; 30 (7): 1724–31.Google Scholar
101. Jauniaux, E, Ben-Ami, I, Maymon, R. Do assisted-reproduction twin pregnancies require additional antenatal care? Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26 (2): 107–19.Google Scholar