Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 25, 2020

The contribution of twins conceived by in vitro fertilization to preterm birth rate: observations from a quarter of century

Jelena Ivandić , Isaac Blickstein , Ana-Maria Šopić Rahelić , Eduard Eškinja and Tea Štimac EMAIL logo

Abstract

Objective

Little information exists related to the contribution of assisted reproductive technology (ART) twins to the preterm and very preterm birth rate. We sought to examine this contribution over a period of more than two decades in a tertiary perinatal center.

Methods

We identified all preterm births from 1993 to 2017, born at <37 or <32 weeks’ gestation, by mode of conception [in vitro fertilization (IVF) vs. non-IVF pregnancies]. We generated trend lines of the annual change of the dependent variable (% preterm birth).

Results

We evaluated 74,299 births, including 3934 (5.3%) preterm births at <37 and 826 (1.1%) at <32 weeks’ gestation. In this period, 1019 (1.4%) twin pairs were born including 475 (46.6%) and 80 (7.8%) at <37 and <32 weeks, respectively. There were 213 (5.4%) IVF pregnancies among the preterm births at <37 weeks, including 88 (41.3%) twins. Fifteen (1.8%) births of all IVF gestations were at <32 weeks, and all were twins. Whereas the annual rate of spontaneous twins did not change, a significant increase over time exists for IVF twins (P < 0.05, R2 = 0.6). We demonstrated an increase in IVF twin births at <37 weeks but not for spontaneously conceived twins. Whereas the twin birth rate at <32 weeks did not change over time, all preterm births at <32 weeks following IVF were twins.

Conclusion

The risk of twins after ART increasingly contributes to preterm births at <37 weeks and ART twins are at significant risk for preterm births at <32 weeks.


Corresponding author: Tea Štimac, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Hospital Center and University of Rijeka, Cambierieva 17/V, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia, Tel.: +385 51 658203

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. 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: US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2018.Search in Google Scholar

2. Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society. Human Assisted Reproduction 2014 Live Birth Rates for Canada. https://cfas.ca/_Library/media_releases_2/2014_press_release.pdf. Accessed Jan 26, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

3. De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2018;33:1586–601.10.1093/humrep/dey242Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Tul N, Verdenik I, Lucovnik M, Druskovic M, Novak Z, Blickstein I. The contribution of twins conceived by assisted reproduction technology to the very preterm birth rate: a population-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2013;171:311–3.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.09.040Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Delnord M, Blondel B, Zeitlin J. What contributes to disparities in the preterm birth rate in European countries? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015;27:133–42.10.1097/GCO.0000000000000156Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

6. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Multiple pregnancy: antenatal care for twin and triplet pregnancies (CG129). 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg129/resources/multiple-pregnancy-antenatal-care-for-twin-and-triplet-pregnancies-pdf-35109458300869. Accessed Jul 3, 2019.Search in Google Scholar

7. Blickstein I. Does assisted reproduction technology, per se, increase the risk of preterm birth? BJOG 2006;113:68–71.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01126.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

8. 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;18:485–503.10.1093/humupd/dms018Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Källén B, Finnström O, Lindam A, Nilsson E, Nygren KG, Olausson PO. Selected neonatal outcomes in dizygotic twins after IVF versus non-IVF pregnancies. BJOG 2010;117:676–82.10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02517.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2019-07-10
Accepted: 2020-02-28
Published Online: 2020-03-25
Published in Print: 2020-04-28

©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 30.1.2023 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/jpm-2019-0251/html
Scroll Up Arrow