Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of assisted reproductive technology programs using donor oocytes


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

The higher infertile marriage rate in economically developed countries has necessitated the emergence and development of assisted reproductive technologies (ART). It should be noted that to date, more than 23% of the ART programs have been implemented in women aged 40years and older. At the same time, the effectiveness of ART techniques using autologous oocytes (AOs) in this age group of patients is about 10%, whereas this indictor for women 45 years of age and older decreases to 1% or less. Over the past 15 years, the number of ART cycles using donor oocytes (DOs) has been steadily increasing. The most common pregnancy complications after cycles using DOs are preterm birth, hypertensive disorders, and preeclampsia. In recent years, there have been data in the literature that the frequency of obstetric complications is higher in patients with DOs than in those with AOs, even after taking confounders into account. That is, the use of DOs is an independent risk factor for obstetric complications. This review of the literature presents current views on the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of ART cycles using DOs.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

T. R Mamedova

Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: mamedovat91@gmail.com
M. D., PhD student of the IVF Department 4 Oparin str, 117997, Moscow, Russia

A. G Syrkasheva

Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: a_syrkasheva@oparina4.ru
M.D., Ph.D., Senior Researcher of the IVF Department 4 Oparin str, 117997, Moscow, Russia

N. V Dolgushina

Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: n_dolgushina@oparina4.ru
M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., Professor, Deputy Director, Head of R&D Department Kulakov NMRC OGP, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation 4 Oparin str, 117997, Moscow, Russia

References

  1. La Marca A. Ovarian antimullerian hormone system: more complex than was thought. Fertil. Steril. 2019; 112(1): 42-3. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2019.04.042.
  2. Сыркашевва А.Г., Ильина Е.О., Долгушина Н.В. Бесплодие у женщин старшего репродуктивного возраста: причины, тактика ведения, перспективы использования преимплантационного генетического скрининга (обзор литературы). Гинекология. 2016; 18(3): 40-3.
  3. Долгушина Н.В., Коротченко О.Е., Бейк Е.П., Абдурахманова Н.Ф., Ильина Е.О., Кулакова Е.В. Клинико-экономический анализ эффективности преимплантационного генетического скрининга у пациенток позднего репродуктивного возраста. Акушерство и гинекология. 2017; 11: 56-61
  4. ESHRE. Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) in Europe 2016 and development of a strategy of vigilance. Preliminary results generated from European registers by ESHRE.
  5. Регистр ВРТ РАРЧ. 2017: Отчет регистра за 2017г. и ВРТ в России 2017г. (Доклад президента РАРЧ на XXIX международной конференции РАРЧ «Репродуктивные технологии сегодня и завтра». г. Ростов-на-Дону.)
  6. Сухих Г.Т., Силачев Д.Н., Горюнов К.В., Волочаева М.В., Шмаков Р.Г. Роль дисфункции стволовых клеток в развитии больших акушерских синдромов. Акушерство и гинекология. 2018; 7: 5-11.
  7. Кан Н.Е., Беднягин Л.А., Долгушина Н.В., Тютюнник В.Л., Ховхаева П.А., Сергунина О.А., Тютюнник Н.В., Амирасланов Э.Ю. Клиникоанамнестические факторы риска развития преэклампсии у беременных. Акушерство и гинекология. 2016; 6: 39-44
  8. Yadav V., Bakolia P., Malhotra N., Mahey R., Singh N., Kriplani A. Comparison of obstetric outcomes of pregnancies after donor-oocyte in vitro fertilization and self-oocyte in vitro fertilization: A retrospective cohort study. J. Hum. Reprod. Sci. 2018; 11(4): 370-75. https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_115_17.
  9. Levron Y., Dviri M., Segol I., Yerushalmi G.M., Hourvitz A., R. Orvieto R. et al. The ‘immunologic theory’ of preeclampsia revisited: a lesson from donor oocyte gestations. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 211(4): 383. e1-5. https://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.044.
  10. Abdalla H.I., Billett A., Kan A.K., Baig S., Wren M., Korea L., Studd J.W. Obstetric outcome in 232 ovum donation pregnancies. 1998; 105(5): 332-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10096.x.
  11. Malchau S.S., Loft A., Larsen E.C., Aaris Henningsen A.K., Rasmussen S., Andersen A.N., Pinborg A. Perinatal outcomes in 375 children born after oocyte donation: a Danish national cohort study. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 99(6): 1637-43. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.128.
  12. Elenis E., Svanberg A.S., Lampic C., Skalkidou A., Akerud H., Sydsjo G. Adverse obstetric outcomes in pregnancies resulting from oocyte donation: a retrospective cohort case study in Sweden. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 215; 15: 247. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0687-9.
  13. Stoop D., Baumgarten M., Haentjens P., Polyzos N.P., De Vos M., Verheyen G. et al. Obstetric outcome in donor oocyte pregnancies: a matched-pair analysis. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2012; 10: 42. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-42.
  14. Gundogan F., Bianchi D.W., Scherjon S.A., Roberts D.J. Placental pathology in egg donor pregnancies. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 93(2): 397-404. https://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.144.
  15. Lashley L.E., Buurma A., Swings G.M., Eikmans M., Anholts J.D., Bakker J.A., Claas F.H. Preeclampsia in autologous and oocyte donation pregnancy: is there a different pathophysiology? J. Reprod. Immunol. 2015; 109: 17-23. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jri.2015.03.004.
  16. Boulet S.L., Kawwass J.F., Crawford S., Davies M.J., Kissin D.M. Preterm birth and small size for gestational age in singleton, in vitro fertilization births using donor oocytes. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2018; 187(8): 1642-50. https://dx.doi. org/10.1093/aje/kwy051.
  17. Dude A.M., Yeh J.S., Muasher S.J. Donor oocytes are associated with preterm birth when compared to fresh autologous in vitro fertilization cycles in singleton pregnancies. Fertil. Steril. 2016; 106(3): 660-5.
  18. Rodriguez-Wallberg K.A., Berger A.S., Fagerberg A., Olofsson J.I., Scherman-Pukk C., Lindqvist P.G., Nasiell J. Increased incidence of obstetric and perinatal complications in pregnancies achieved using donor oocytes and single embryo transfer in young and healthy women. A prospective hospital-based matched cohort study. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2019; 35(4): 314-9. https://dx.doi.Org/10.1 080/09513590.2018.1528577.
  19. Gibbons W.E., Cedars M, Ness R.B. Toward understanding obstetrical outcome in advanced assisted reproduction: varying sperm, oocyte, and uterine source and diagnosis. Fertil. Steril. 2011; 95(5): 1645-9. e1. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2010.11.029.
  20. Baker V.L., Brown M.B., Luke B., Conrad K.P. Association of number of retrieved oocytes with live birth rate and birth weight: an analysis of 231,815 cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril. 2015; 103(4): 931-8. e2. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.120.
  21. Klatsky P.C., Delaney S.S., Caughey A.B., Tran N.D., Schattman G.L., Rosenwaks Z. The role of embryonic origin in preeclampsia: a comparison of autologous in vitro fertilization and ovum donor pregnancies. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010; 116(6): 1387-92. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ AOG.0b013e3181fb8e59.
  22. Zegers-Hochschild F., Masoli D., Schwarze J.E., Iaconelli A., Borges E., Pacheco I.M. Reproductive performance in oocyte donors and their recipients: comparative analysis from implantation to birth and lactation. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 93(7): 2210-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016 /j.fertnstert.2009.01.068.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies