Absolute Risk of Adverse Obstetric Outcomes Among Twin Pregnancies After In Vitro Fertilization by Maternal Age | Neonatology | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.153.100.128. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Niederberger  C, Pellicer  A, Cohen  J,  et al.  Forty years of IVF.   Fertil Steril. 2018;110(2):185-324.e5. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.06.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Crawford  GE, Ledger  WL.  In vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection beyond 2020.   BJOG. 2019;126(2):237-243. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15526 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
de Mouzon  J, Chambers  GM, Zegers-Hochschild  F,  et al.  International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies world report: assisted reproductive technology 2012.   Hum Reprod. 2020;35(8):1900-1913. doi:10.1093/humrep/deaa090 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Bai  F, Wang  DY, Fan  YJ,  et al.  Assisted reproductive technology service availability, efficacy and safety in mainland China: 2016.   Hum Reprod. 2020;35(2):446-452. doi:10.1093/humrep/dez245 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
National Bureau of Statistics. The 2016 Statistical Communique on National Economic and Social Development of China. February 28, 2017. Accessed October 21, 2020. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/zxfb/201702/t20170228_1467424.html
6.
Pinborg  A.  IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention.   Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11(6):575-593. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmi027 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Wyns  C, Bergh  C, Calhaz-Jorge  C,  et al; European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM)‡ for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE).  ART in Europe, 2016: results generated from European registries by ESHRE.   Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(3):a032. doi:10.1093/hropen/hoaa032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016 assisted reproductive technology national summary report. Reviewed December 28, 2018. Accessed October 21, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/art/reports/2016/national-summary.html
9.
Cheong-See  F, Schuit  E, Arroyo-Manzano  D,  et al; Global Obstetrics Network (GONet) Collaboration.  Prospective risk of stillbirth and neonatal complications in twin pregnancies: systematic review and meta-analysis.   BMJ. 2016;354:i4353. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4353 PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Mackie  FL, Rigby  A, Morris  RK, Kilby  MD.  Prognosis of the co-twin following spontaneous single intrauterine fetal death in twin pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   BJOG. 2019;126(5):569-578.PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Santana  DS, Silveira  C, Costa  ML,  et al; WHO Multi-Country Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health Research Network.  Perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies complicated by maternal morbidity: evidence from the WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health.   BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018;18(1):449. doi:10.1186/s12884-018-2082-9 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Santana  DS, Cecatti  JG, Surita  FG,  et al; WHO Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health Research Network.  Twin pregnancy and severe maternal outcomes: the World Health Organization Multicountry Survey on Maternal and Newborn Health.   Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(4):631-641. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001338 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
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. doi:10.1136/bmj.37957.560278.EE PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Elias  FTS, Weber-Adrian  D, Pudwell  J,  et al.  Neonatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies conceived by fresh or frozen embryo transfer compared to spontaneous conceptions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;302(1):31-45. doi:10.1007/s00404-020-05593-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
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. doi:10.1093/humupd/dms018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Qin  JB, Sheng  XQ, Wu  D,  et al.  Worldwide prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes among singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(2):285-301. doi:10.1007/s00404-016-4250-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Schummers  L, Hutcheon  JA, Hacker  MR,  et al.  Absolute risks of obstetric outcomes by maternal age at first birth: a population-based cohort.   Epidemiology. 2018;29(3):379-387. doi:10.1097/EDE.0000000000000818 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Wennberg  AL, Opdahl  S, Bergh  C,  et al.  Effect of maternal age on maternal and neonatal outcomes after assisted reproductive technology.   Fertil Steril. 2016;106(5):1142-1149.e14. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.06.021PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Xiong  X, Dickey  RP, Pridjian  G, Buekens  P.  Maternal age and preterm births in singleton and twin pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilisation in the United States.   Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2015;29(1):22-30. doi:10.1111/ppe.12166 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
National Health Commission of China. Notice on the issuance of Class 3 Hospital Evaluation Standards (2020 edition). December 21, 2020. Accessed May 11, 2021. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2020-12/28/content_5574274.htm
21.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision. January 1, 2019. Accessed September 28, 2020. https://www.who.int/classifications/classification-of-diseases
22.
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM). Reviewed November 16, 2015. Accessed September 28, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm.htm
23.
National Health Commission.  China Health Statistics Yearbook 2019. Union Medical University Press; 2020.
24.
SAS, version 9.0, software. SAS Institute, Inc. June 30, 2008. Accessed September 28, 2020. https://www.sas.com/
25.
Harrell  F.  Regression Modeling Strategies with Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. Springer; 2001. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1
26.
Vrieze  SI.  Model selection and psychological theory: a discussion of the differences between the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC).   Psychol Methods. 2012;17(2):228-243. doi:10.1037/a0027127 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Davies  MJ, Rumbold  AR, Marino  JL,  et al.  Maternal factors and the risk of birth defects after IVF and ICSI: a whole of population cohort study.   BJOG. 2017;124(10):1537-1544. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14365 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Liu  K, Case  AC; Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility Committee.  Advanced reproductive age and fertility.   J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(11):1165-1175. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35087-3 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Liu  KE, Case  A.  No. 346–advanced reproductive age and fertility.   J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2017;39(8):685-695. doi:10.1016/j.jogc.2016.12.004 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Heffner  LJ.  Advanced maternal age—how old is too old?   N Engl J Med. 2004;351(19):1927-1929. doi:10.1056/NEJMp048087 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Berntsen  S, Söderström-Anttila  V, Wennerholm  UB,  et al.  The health of children conceived by ART: “the chicken or the egg?”.   Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(2):137-158. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmz001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
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(2):87-104. doi:10.1093/humupd/dms044 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Bay  B, Boie  S, Kesmodel  US.  Risk of stillbirth in low-risk singleton term pregnancies following fertility treatment: a national cohort study.   BJOG. 2019;126(2):253-260. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.15509 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Tian  C, Deng  T, Zhu  X,  et al.  Evidence of compliance with and effectiveness of guidelines for noninvasive prenatal testing in China: a retrospective study of 189,809 cases.   Sci China Life Sci. 2020;63(3):319-328. doi:10.1007/s11427-019-9600-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Alfirevic  Z, Navaratnam  K, Mujezinovic  F.  Amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling for prenatal diagnosis.   Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:CD003252. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003252.pub2 PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Chambers  GM, Hoang  VP, Lee  E,  et al.  Hospital costs of multiple-birth and singleton-birth children during the first 5 years of life and the role of assisted reproductive technology.   JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168(11):1045-1053. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.1357 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Cutting  R.  Single embryo transfer for all.   Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;53:30-37. doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2018.07.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Harbottle  S, Hughes  C, Cutting  R, Roberts  S, Brison  D; Association of Clinical Embryologists & The (ACE) British Fertility Society (BFS).  Elective single embryo transfer: an update to UK Best Practice Guidelines.   Hum Fertil (Camb). 2015;18(3):165-183. doi:10.3109/14647273.2015.1083144 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Fertility treatment 2019: trends and figures. May 2021. Accessed June 8, 2021. https://www.hfea.gov.uk/about-us/publications/research-and-data/fertility-treatment-2019-trends-and-figures/#Section3
40.
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. SART National Summary Report. March 1, 2021. Accessed June 8, 2021. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/Csr/Public?ClinicPKID=0
41.
Boerma  T, Ronsmans  C, Melesse  DY,  et al.  Global epidemiology of use of and disparities in caesarean sections.   Lancet. 2018;392(10155):1341-1348. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31928-7 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
World Health Organization. WHO Statement on Caesarean Section Rates. World Health Organization; April 2015.
43.
Molina  G, Weiser  TG, Lipsitz  SR,  et al.  Relationship between cesarean delivery rate and maternal and neonatal mortality.   JAMA. 2015;314(21):2263-2270. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.15553 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Hofmeyr  GJ, Barrett  JF, Crowther  CA.  Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy.   Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD006553. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006553.pub3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Hofmeyr GJ, Barrett JF, Crowther CA. Planned caesarean section for women with a twin pregnancy.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD006553. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006553.pub3
46.
Gholitabar  M, Ullman  R, James  D, Griffiths  M; Guideline Development Group of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence.  Caesarean section: summary of updated NICE guidance.   BMJ. 2011;343:d7108. doi:10.1136/bmj.d7108 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
47.
Qiao  J, Wang  Y, Li  X,  et al.  A Lancet commission on 70 years of women’s reproductive, maternal, newborn, child, and adolescent health in China.   Lancet. 2021;397(10293):2497-2536. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32708-2 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
Long  Q, Kingdon  C, Yang  F,  et al.  Prevalence of and reasons for women’s, family members’, and health professionals’ preferences for cesarean section in China: a mixed-methods systematic review.   PLoS Med. 2018;15(10):e1002672. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002672 PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    Obstetrics and Gynecology
    September 10, 2021

    Absolute Risk of Adverse Obstetric Outcomes Among Twin Pregnancies After In Vitro Fertilization by Maternal Age

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Center for Reproductive Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
    • 2Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
    • 3National Clinical Research Center for Obstetrical and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China
    • 4Key Laboratory of Assisted Reproduction, Peking University, Ministry of Education, Beijing, China
    • 5National Center for Healthcare Quality Management in Obstetrics, Beijing, China
    • 6Department of Biostatistics, Peking University School of Public Health, Beijing, China
    • 7Clinical Trial Unit, First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
    • 8Centre for Data Science in Health and Medicine, Peking University, Beijing, China
    • 9China Standard Medical Information Research Center, Shenzhen, China
    JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(9):e2123634. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.23634
    Key Points

    Question  What is the absolute risk of adverse obstetric outcomes stratified by in vitro fertilization (IVF), twin or singleton pregnancy, and maternal age?

    Findings  In this cohort study of 16 879 728 pregnant women, the twin pregnancy rate was 32.1% among those who conceived via IVF. Twin pregnancies conceived via IVF had higher absolute obstetric risks in each maternal age compared with IVF-conceived singleton pregnancies or non–IVF-conceived twin pregnancies.

    Meaning  These findings suggest that twin pregnancy, IVF, and advanced maternal age are independently associated with adverse obstetric outcomes, and their coexistence may lead to the aggravation of obstetric risk.

    Abstract

    Importance  Twin pregnancy is a common occurrence in pregnancies conceived with in vitro fertilization (IVF), but the absolute risk of adverse obstetric outcomes stratified by IVF, twin or singleton pregnancy, and maternal age are unknown.

    Objective  To estimate the absolute risk of adverse obstetric outcomes at each maternal age among twin pregnancies conceived with IVF.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This retrospective cohort study included pregnant women with infants born from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018, based on the Hospital Quality Monitoring System in China. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021.

    Exposures  Twin pregnancy with IVF (IVF-T), singleton pregnancy with IVF (IVF-S), twin pregnancy with non-IVF (nIVF-T), and singleton pregnancy with non-IVF (nIVF-S).

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Sixteen obstetric outcomes, including 10 maternal complications (gestational hypertension, eclampsia and preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, placenta previa, placental abruption, placenta accreta, preterm birth, dystocia, cesarean delivery, and postpartum hemorrhage) and 6 neonatal complications (fetal growth restriction, low birth weight, very low birth weight, macrosomia, malformation, and stillbirth).

    Results  Among 16 879 728 pregnant women aged 20 to 49 years (mean [SD] age, 29.2 [4.7] years), the twin-pregnancy rates were 32.1% in the IVF group and 1.5% in the non-IVF group (relative risk, 20.8; 95% CI, 20.6-20.9). The most common adverse obstetric outcomes after pregnancy conceived with IVF were cesarean delivery (88.8%), low birth weight (43.8%), preterm birth (39.6%), gestational diabetes (20.5%), gestational hypertension and preeclampsia and eclampsia (17.5%), dystocia (16.8%), and postpartum hemorrhage (11.9%). The absolute risk of most adverse obstetric outcomes in each subgroup presented in 2 dominant patterns: Pattern A indicated the absolute risk ranging from IVF-T to nIVF-T to IVF-S to nIVF-S, and pattern B indicated the absolute risk ranging from IVF-T to IVF-S to nIVF-T to nIVF-S. Both patterns showed an elevated obstetric risk with increasing maternal age in each subgroup.

    Conclusions and Relevance  In this cohort study, twin pregnancy, IVF, and advanced maternal age were independently associated with adverse obstetric outcomes. Given these findings, promotion of the elective single embryo transfer strategy is needed to reduce multiple pregnancies following IVF technologies. Unnecessary cesarean delivery shouldh be avoided in all pregnant women.

    ×