Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2023; 40(09): 953-959
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732451
Original Article

Assisted Reproductive Technology and Perinatal Mortality: Selected States (2006–2011)

Jeani Chang 
1   Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Yujia Zhang
1   Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Sheree L. Boulet
2   Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Sara B. Crawford
1   Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Glenn E. Copeland
3   Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Lansing, Michigan
,
Dana Bernson
4   Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Russell S. Kirby
5   College of Public Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
,
Dmitry M. Kissin
1   Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
,
Wanda D. Barfield
1   Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
,
for States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (SMART) Collaborative › Author Affiliations Funding R.K. reports grant from Florida Department of Health, others from National Birth Defects Prevention Network, American College of Epidemiology, Perinatal Foundation (Madison, WI), 37th Street Foundation, March of Dimes Foundation.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to compare trends and characteristics of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and non-ART perinatal deaths and to evaluate the association of perinatal mortality and method of conception (ART vs. non-ART) among ART and non-ART deliveries in Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan from 2006 to 2011.

Study Design Retrospective cohort study using linked ART surveillance and vital records data from Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan.

Results During 2006 to 2011, a total of 570 ART-conceived perinatal deaths and 25,158 non-ART conceived perinatal deaths were identified from the participating states. Overall, ART perinatal mortality rates were lower than non-ART perinatal mortality rates for both singletons (7.0/1,000 births vs. 10.2/1,000 births) and multiples (22.8/1,000 births vs. 41.2/1,000 births). At <28 weeks of gestation, the risk of perinatal death among ART singletons was significantly lower than non-ART singletons (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] = 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26–0.85). Similar results were observed among multiples at <28 weeks of gestation (aRR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.45–0.89).

Conclusion Our findings suggest that ART use is associated with a decreased risk of perinatal deaths prior to 28 weeks of gestation, which may be explained by earlier detection and management of fetal and maternal conditions among ART-conceived pregnancies. These findings provide valuable information for health care providers, including infertility specialists, obstetricians, and pediatricians when counseling ART users on risk of treatment.

Key Points

  • ART use is associated with a decreased risk of perinatal deaths prior to 28 weeks of gestation.

  • ART perinatal mortality rates were lower than that for non-ART perinatal mortality.

  • This study used linked data to examine associations between use of ART and perinatal deaths.

Keywords

perinatal mortality - stillbirth - infant death - assisted reproductive technology

Note

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.




Publication History

Received: 12 June 2020

Accepted: 15 June 2021

Article published online:
19 July 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2017 National Survey of Family Growth. Accessed 2021 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/i.html
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2016 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services. 2018
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Zhang Y. et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2016. MMWR Surveill Summ 2019; 68 (04) 1-23
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 MacDorman MF, Kirmeyer SE, Wilson EC. Fetal and perinatal mortality, United States, 2006. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2012; 60 (08) 1-22
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Kawwass JF, Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD. et al; National ART Surveillance System (NASS) Group. Safety of assisted reproductive technology in the United States, 2000-2011. JAMA 2015; 313 (01) 88-90
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Henningsen AA, Wennerholm UB, Gissler M. et al. Risk of stillbirth and infant deaths after assisted reproductive technology: a nordic study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (05) 1090-1096
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Wisborg K, Ingerslev HJ, Henriksen TB. IVF and stillbirth: a prospective follow-up study. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (05) 1312-1316
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Gissler M, Malin Silverio M, Hemminki E. In-vitro fertilization pregnancies and perinatal health in Finland 1991-1993. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (07) 1856-1861
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Chughtai AA, Wang AY, Hilder L. et al. Gestational age-specific perinatal mortality rates for assisted reproductive technology (ART) and other births. Hum Reprod 2018; 33 (02) 320-327
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Mneimneh AS, Boulet SL, Sunderam S. et al; States Monitoring ART (SMART) Collaborative. States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (SMART) Collaborative: data collection, linkage, dissemination, and use. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2013; 22 (07) 571-577
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Zhang Y, Cohen B, Macaluso M, Zhang Z, Durant T, Nannini A. Probabilistic linkage of assisted reproductive technology information with vital records, Massachusetts 1997-2000. Matern Child Health J 2012; 16 (08) 1703-1708
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Cohen B, Bernson D, Sappenfield W. et al; States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology Collaborative. Accuracy of assisted reproductive technology information on birth certificates: Florida and Massachusetts, 2004-06. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2014; 28 (03) 181-190
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Adashi EY, Wyden R. Public reporting of clinical outcomes of assisted reproductive technology programs: implications for other medical and surgical procedures. JAMA 2011; 306 (10) 1135-1136
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Barfield WD. Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Standard terminology for fetal, infant, and perinatal deaths. Pediatrics 2016; 137 (05) e20160511
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Henriksson P, Eriksson B, Forsum E, Löf M. Gestational weight gain according to Institute of Medicine recommendations in relation to infant size and body composition. Pediatr Obes 2015; 10 (05) 388-394
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016 National vital statistics system. Accessed 2021 at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fetal_death.htm
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2006 National Vital Statistics Report. Accessed 2021 at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_08.pdf
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Faiz AS, Demissie K, Rich DQ, Kruse L, Rhoads GG. Trends and risk factors of stillbirth in New Jersey 1997-2005. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25 (06) 699-705
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Martin AS, Chang J, Zhang Y. et al; States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (SMART) Collaborative. Perinatal outcomes among singletons after assisted reproductive technology with single-embryo or double-embryo transfer versus no assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2017; 107 (04) 954-960
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Gardosi J, Madurasinghe V, Williams M, Malik A, Francis A. Maternal and fetal risk factors for stillbirth: population based study. BMJ 2013; 346: f108
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Chambers GM, Hoang VP, Sullivan EA. et al. The impact of consumer affordability on access to assisted reproductive technologies and embryo transfer practices: an international analysis. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (01) 191-198.e4
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Crawford S, Boulet SL, Jamieson DJ, Stone C, Mullen J, Kissin DM. Assisted reproductive technology use, embryo transfer practices, and birth outcomes after infertility insurance mandates: New Jersey and Connecticut. Fertil Steril 2016; 105 (02) 347-355
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Baker VL, Jones CE, Cometti B. et al. Factors affecting success rates in two concurrent clinical IVF trials: an examination of potential explanations for the difference in pregnancy rates between the United States and Europe. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (04) 1287-1291
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ehrenthal DB, Wingate MS, Kirby RS. Variation by state in outcomes classification for deliveries less than 500 g in the United States. Matern Child Health J 2011; 15 (01) 42-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Lee E, Toprani A, Begier E, Genovese R, Madsen A, Gambatese M. Implications for improving fetal death vital statistics: connecting reporters' self-identified practices and barriers to third trimester fetal death data quality in New York City. Matern Child Health J 2016; 20 (02) 337-346
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Snowden JM, Bovbjerg ML, Dissanayake M, Basso O. The curse of the perinatal epidemiologist: inferring causation amidst selection. Curr Epidemiol Rep 2018; 5 (04) 379-387
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network Writing Group. Causes of death among stillbirths. JAMA 2011; 306 (22) 2459-2468
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Stillbirth Collaborative Research Network Writing Group. Association between stillbirth and risk factors known at pregnancy confirmation. JAMA 2011; 306 (22) 2469-2479
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Greenland S. Quantifying biases in causal models: classical confounding vs collider-stratification bias. Epidemiology 2003; 14 (03) 300-306
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Troude P, Bailly E, Guibert J, Bouyer J, de la Rochebrochard E. DAIFI Group. Spontaneous pregnancies among couples previously treated by in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (01) 63-68
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar