American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 193, Issue 1 , Pages 141-152, July 2005

Perinatal outcomes of in vitro fertilization twins: A systematic review and meta-analyses

  • Sarah McDonald, MD

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Clinical Epidemiology, Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Dr S.D. McDonald, OMNI Research Group, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital, General Campus 501 Smyth Rd, Box 241, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6.
  • ,
  • Kellie Murphy, MD, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology
    • Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto
  • ,
  • Joseph Beyene, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto
    • Program in Population Health Sciences, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • ,
  • Arne Ohlsson, MD, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Pediatrics
    • Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto

Received 16 August 2004; received in revised form 16 November 2004; accepted 29 November 2004.

Objective

Uncontrolled studies suggest that in vitro fertilization twins have increased rates of preterm birth and low birth weight and would warrant increased antenatal monitoring. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine whether the incidence of poor obstetric outcomes is higher for in vitro fertilization twins than for spontaneously conceived twins who were matched for maternal age.

Study design

Medline and EMBASE were searched with comprehensive search strategies. Case-control and cohort studies of twins who were conceived by in vitro fertilization or in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection, with the transfer of fresh embryos or cryopreserved (frozen) in women with infertility, and/or whose partners were subfertile or infertile, compared with naturally (spontaneously) conceived twins who were matched for maternal age (case-control studies) or which were controlled for it (cohort studies). Two reviewers independently assessed titles, abstracts, and study quality and extracted the data. Statistical analysis was performed with commercial statistical software. Dichotomous data were meta-analyzed with odds ratios as measures of effect size, and continuous data was meta-analyzed with mean differences. Interstudy variation was incorporated with the assumption of a random effects model for the treatment effect.

Results

Compared with spontaneously conceived twins who were matched for maternal age, in vitro fertilization twins have an increased risk of preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks of gestation (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.05-2.10), and an elevated risk of preterm birth at <37 weeks of gestation when parity is also matched for an odds ratio of 1.57 (95% CI, 1.01-2.44). There was an increased rate of cesarean delivery among in vitro fertilization twins (odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.67). There were no significant differences in incidences of perinatal death, low birth weight infants, or congenital malformations.

Conclusion

In vitro fertilization twins have increased rates of preterm birth compared with spontaneously conceived twins who were matched for maternal age, despite the fact that their outcomes would be expected to be better because of the decreased proportion of monochorionic twins.

Key words: In vitro fertilization, Twins, Meta-analysis, Perinatal outcome, Case-control study

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 30.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0002-9378(04)02077-0

doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.064

American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
Volume 193, Issue 1 , Pages 141-152, July 2005