Perinatal outcomes after ART with transfer of cryopreserved embryos

Abstract

The number of children born after ART, which includes cryopreservation methods, is steadily rising worldwide. Data on perinatal outcomes after transfer of cryopreserved embryos is presented in the article. Analysis of the influence of fertilization method — IVF/ICSI, embryo cryopreservation method — slow freezing method and vitrification is composed.

Keywords

perinatal outcome / cryopreservation / slow freezing / vitrification / birth defect

References

[1] Вейсман А. Перенос криоэмбрионов // Проблемы репродукции. — 2010. — Т. 16, N 2. — С. 34–40.

[2] Birth characteristics and perinatal outcome of babies conceived from cryopreserved embryos / Wada I. [et al.] // Hum. Reprod. — 1994. — Vol. 9, N 3. — P. 543–546.

[3] Comparison of the major malformation rate of children conceived from cryopreserved embryos and fresh embryos / Li H. [et al.] // Chin. Med. J. — 2010. — Vol. 123, N 14. — P. 1893–1897.

[4] Factors affecting low birthweight after assisted reproduction technology: difference between transfer of fresh and cryopreserved embryos suggests an adverse effect of oocyte collection / Shih W. [et al.] // Hum. Reprod. — 2008. — Vol. 23, N 7. — P. 1644–1653.

[5] In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: infant outcome after different IVF fertilization methods / Kallen B. [et al.] // Fertil. Steril. — 2005. — Vol. 84, N 3. — P. 611–617.

[6] In vitro fertilization is associated with an increase in major birth defects / Olson C. K. [et al.] // Fertil. Steril. — 2005. — Vol. 84, N 5. — P. 1308–1315.

[7] In vitro fertilization in Sweden: child morbidity including cancer risk / Kallen B. [et al.] // Fertil. Steril. — 2005. — Vol. 84, N 3. — P. 605–610.

[8] In vitro fertilization (IVF) in Sweden: risk for congenital malformations after different IVF methods / Kallen B. [et al.] // Birth Defects Res. A Clin. Mol. Teratol. — 2005. — Vol. 73, N 3. — P. 162–169.

[9] Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: The Danish National Cohort Study 1995–2006 /Pinborg A. [et al.] // Fertil. Steril. — 2010. — Vol. 94, N 4. — P. 1320–1327.

[10] Minor congenital anomalies, major congenital malformations and development in children conceived from cryopreserved embryos / Sutcliffe A. G. [et al.] // Hum. Reprod. — 1995. — Vol. 10, N 12. — P. 3332–3337.

[11] Neonatal outcome after vitrified day 3 embryo transfer: a preliminary study / Rama Raju G. A. [et al.] // Fertil. Steril. — 2009. — Vol. 92, N 1. — P. 143–148.

[12] 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 / Belva F. [et al.] // Hum. Reprod. — 2008. — Vol. 23, N 10. — P. 2227–2238.

[13] Obstetric outcomes after transfer of vitrified blastocysts / Wikland M. [et al.] // Hum. Reprod. — 2010. — Vol. 25, N 7. — P. 1699–1707.

[14] Obstetric outcome in singletons after in vitro fertilization with cryopreserved/thawed embryos / Sazonova A. [et al.] // Hum. Reprod. — 2012. — Vol. 27, N 5. — P. 1343–1350.

[15] Outcome in children from cryopreserved embryos / Sutcliffe A. G. [et al.] // Arch. Dis. Child. — 1995. — Vol. 72, N 4. — P. 290–293.

[16] Perinatal and neonatal outcomes of 494 babies delivered from 972 vitrified embryo transfers / Shi W. [et al.] // Fertil. Steril. — 2012. — Vol. 97, N 6. — P. 1338–1342.

[17] Perinatal outcome of blastocyst transfer with vitrification, using cryoloop: a 4-year follow-up study / Takahashi K. [et al.] // Fertil. Steril. — 2005. — Vol. 84, N 1. — P. 88–92.

[18] Perinatal outcome of children born after frozen and fresh embryo transfer: the Finnish cohort study 1995–2006 /Pelkonen S. [et al.] // Hum. Reprod. — 2010. — Vol. 25, N 4. — P. 914–923.

[19] Physical and mental development of children after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer / Nakajo J. [et al.] // Reprod. Med. Biol. — 2004. — Vol. 3, N 2. — P. 63–67.

[20] Postnatal growth and health in children born after cryopreservation as embryos / Wennerholm U. B. [et al.] // Lancet. — 1998. — Vol. 351, N 9109. — P. 1071–1142.

[21] SART. 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. — Vol. 69, N 3. — P. 389–398.

[22] SART. 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. — Vol. 74, N 4. — P. 641–653.

[23] SART. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1998 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine / Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry // Fertil. Steril. — 2002. — Vol. 77, N 1. — P. 18–31.

[24] SART. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 1999 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine / Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry // Fertil. Steril. — 2002. — Vol. 78, N 5. — P. 918–931.

[25] SART. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2000 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine / Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry // Fertil. Steril. — 2004. — Vol. 81, N 5. — P. 1207–1220.

[26] SART. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2001 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine / Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Registry // Fertil. Steril. — 2007. — Vol. 87, N 6. — P. 1253–1266.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Kravchuk Y.N., Kalugina A.S.