Cargando…

Health of 2-year-old children born after vitrified oocyte donation in comparison with peers born after fresh oocyte donation

STUDY QUESTION: Does oocyte vitrification adversely affect the health of 2-year-old children compared with peers born after use of fresh oocytes in a donation programme? SUMMARY ANSWER: The growth and health of 2-year-old children born after oocyte vitrification are similar to those of peers born af...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Reckem, Marjan, Blockeel, Christophe, Bonduelle, Maryse, Buysse, Andrea, Roelants, Mathieu, Verheyen, Greta, Tournaye, Herman, Hes, Frederik, Belva, Florence
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7892365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33634217
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoab002
_version_ 1783652832890585088
author Van Reckem, Marjan
Blockeel, Christophe
Bonduelle, Maryse
Buysse, Andrea
Roelants, Mathieu
Verheyen, Greta
Tournaye, Herman
Hes, Frederik
Belva, Florence
author_facet Van Reckem, Marjan
Blockeel, Christophe
Bonduelle, Maryse
Buysse, Andrea
Roelants, Mathieu
Verheyen, Greta
Tournaye, Herman
Hes, Frederik
Belva, Florence
author_sort Van Reckem, Marjan
collection PubMed
description STUDY QUESTION: Does oocyte vitrification adversely affect the health of 2-year-old children compared with peers born after use of fresh oocytes in a donation programme? SUMMARY ANSWER: The growth and health of 2-year-old children born after oocyte vitrification are similar to those of peers born after use of fresh oocytes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although oocyte vitrification is a well-established procedure in ART, the evidence on its safety for offspring is limited. Currently, no disadvantageous effects of oocyte vitrification have been shown in terms of obstetric and neonatal outcome. However, no data beyond the neonatal period are available to date. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A combined retrospective and prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary reproductive centre. The retrospective data were available in our extensive database of children born after ART. Donor cycles with an oocyte retrieval between January 2010 and March 2017 and a fresh embryo transfer resulting in the livebirth of a singleton were selected from the established oocyte donation programme. Fresh or vitrified oocytes were used in the donor cycles and all pregnancies in oocyte recipients were achieved after ICSI. Only children residing in Belgium were eligible for follow-up. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Biometric and health parameters of 72 children born after oocyte vitrification were compared with those of 41 children born after use of a fresh oocyte. Data were collected by means of questionnaires and physical examinations at the age of 21–30 months. The primary outcome measures were anthropometry and health at 2 years of age. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Length, weight, BMI, head circumference, left arm circumference and waist circumference at the age of 2 years were comparable between the vitrification and fresh group, also after adjustment for treatment, and maternal and neonatal characteristics (all P > 0.05). Health of the children in terms of hospital admission and surgical intervention rates were comparable between the vitrification and fresh group (both P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the current study is the largest series describing health parameters beyond the neonatal period, the small numbers still preclude definite conclusions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study provides the first evidence indicating that oocyte vitrification does not adversely affect the growth and health of offspring beyond the neonatal period. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by Methusalem grants and by grants from Wetenschappelijk Fonds Willy Gepts, all issued by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. All co-authors declared no conflict of interest in relation to this work. Both the Centre for Reproductive Medicine and the Centre for Medical Genetics from the UZ Brussel have received several educational grants from IBSA, Ferring, MSD and Merck for either research on oocyte vitrification or for establishing the database for follow-up research and organizing the data collection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7892365
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78923652021-02-24 Health of 2-year-old children born after vitrified oocyte donation in comparison with peers born after fresh oocyte donation Van Reckem, Marjan Blockeel, Christophe Bonduelle, Maryse Buysse, Andrea Roelants, Mathieu Verheyen, Greta Tournaye, Herman Hes, Frederik Belva, Florence Hum Reprod Open Original Article STUDY QUESTION: Does oocyte vitrification adversely affect the health of 2-year-old children compared with peers born after use of fresh oocytes in a donation programme? SUMMARY ANSWER: The growth and health of 2-year-old children born after oocyte vitrification are similar to those of peers born after use of fresh oocytes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although oocyte vitrification is a well-established procedure in ART, the evidence on its safety for offspring is limited. Currently, no disadvantageous effects of oocyte vitrification have been shown in terms of obstetric and neonatal outcome. However, no data beyond the neonatal period are available to date. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A combined retrospective and prospective observational study was performed in a tertiary reproductive centre. The retrospective data were available in our extensive database of children born after ART. Donor cycles with an oocyte retrieval between January 2010 and March 2017 and a fresh embryo transfer resulting in the livebirth of a singleton were selected from the established oocyte donation programme. Fresh or vitrified oocytes were used in the donor cycles and all pregnancies in oocyte recipients were achieved after ICSI. Only children residing in Belgium were eligible for follow-up. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Biometric and health parameters of 72 children born after oocyte vitrification were compared with those of 41 children born after use of a fresh oocyte. Data were collected by means of questionnaires and physical examinations at the age of 21–30 months. The primary outcome measures were anthropometry and health at 2 years of age. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Length, weight, BMI, head circumference, left arm circumference and waist circumference at the age of 2 years were comparable between the vitrification and fresh group, also after adjustment for treatment, and maternal and neonatal characteristics (all P > 0.05). Health of the children in terms of hospital admission and surgical intervention rates were comparable between the vitrification and fresh group (both P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the current study is the largest series describing health parameters beyond the neonatal period, the small numbers still preclude definite conclusions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study provides the first evidence indicating that oocyte vitrification does not adversely affect the growth and health of offspring beyond the neonatal period. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by Methusalem grants and by grants from Wetenschappelijk Fonds Willy Gepts, all issued by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. All co-authors declared no conflict of interest in relation to this work. Both the Centre for Reproductive Medicine and the Centre for Medical Genetics from the UZ Brussel have received several educational grants from IBSA, Ferring, MSD and Merck for either research on oocyte vitrification or for establishing the database for follow-up research and organizing the data collection. Oxford University Press 2021-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7892365/ /pubmed/33634217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoab002 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Van Reckem, Marjan
Blockeel, Christophe
Bonduelle, Maryse
Buysse, Andrea
Roelants, Mathieu
Verheyen, Greta
Tournaye, Herman
Hes, Frederik
Belva, Florence
Health of 2-year-old children born after vitrified oocyte donation in comparison with peers born after fresh oocyte donation
title Health of 2-year-old children born after vitrified oocyte donation in comparison with peers born after fresh oocyte donation
title_full Health of 2-year-old children born after vitrified oocyte donation in comparison with peers born after fresh oocyte donation
title_fullStr Health of 2-year-old children born after vitrified oocyte donation in comparison with peers born after fresh oocyte donation
title_full_unstemmed Health of 2-year-old children born after vitrified oocyte donation in comparison with peers born after fresh oocyte donation
title_short Health of 2-year-old children born after vitrified oocyte donation in comparison with peers born after fresh oocyte donation
title_sort health of 2-year-old children born after vitrified oocyte donation in comparison with peers born after fresh oocyte donation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7892365/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33634217
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoab002
work_keys_str_mv AT vanreckemmarjan healthof2yearoldchildrenbornaftervitrifiedoocytedonationincomparisonwithpeersbornafterfreshoocytedonation
AT blockeelchristophe healthof2yearoldchildrenbornaftervitrifiedoocytedonationincomparisonwithpeersbornafterfreshoocytedonation
AT bonduellemaryse healthof2yearoldchildrenbornaftervitrifiedoocytedonationincomparisonwithpeersbornafterfreshoocytedonation
AT buysseandrea healthof2yearoldchildrenbornaftervitrifiedoocytedonationincomparisonwithpeersbornafterfreshoocytedonation
AT roelantsmathieu healthof2yearoldchildrenbornaftervitrifiedoocytedonationincomparisonwithpeersbornafterfreshoocytedonation
AT verheyengreta healthof2yearoldchildrenbornaftervitrifiedoocytedonationincomparisonwithpeersbornafterfreshoocytedonation
AT tournayeherman healthof2yearoldchildrenbornaftervitrifiedoocytedonationincomparisonwithpeersbornafterfreshoocytedonation
AT hesfrederik healthof2yearoldchildrenbornaftervitrifiedoocytedonationincomparisonwithpeersbornafterfreshoocytedonation
AT belvaflorence healthof2yearoldchildrenbornaftervitrifiedoocytedonationincomparisonwithpeersbornafterfreshoocytedonation