HAC (Russian)
RSCI (Russian)
EBSCO
DOI (USA)
Ulrichsweb (Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory)
Scientific Indexing Services

The health status of children born after various assisted reproductive technologies

DOI: https://doi.org/10.29296/25877305-2021-08-12
Issue: 
8
Year: 
2021

Professor O. Filkina, MD; E. Vorobyeva, MD; Professor A. Malyshkina, MD; N. Dolotova, MD; Z-B.
Arekhova V.N. Gorodkov Ivanovo Research Institute of Maternity and Childhood, Ministry of Health of Russia

To study the health of children born after assisted reproductive technologies (ART) is an urgent task of medicine. Objective: to investigate the features of social and biological histories, morbidity, and anthropometric measures in children born after ART with transfer of cryopreserved and native embryos. Subjects and methods. The investigation enrolled 313 children and their mothers. Group 1 included 153 children born after cryopreserved embryo transfer (CET); Group 2 consisted of 160 children born after native embryo transfer (NET). The data was copied from the individual case records when using ART (Form No. 111-1/y-03) and neonatal (Form No. 097/y) and infant (Form No. 112/y and Form No. 003/y) ones. Social and biological history data, morbidity, and neonatal anthropometric measures (body weight, body height, and head and chest circumferences) were analyzed. Results. Mothers of children born after CET and NET did not differ in age, social and obstetric history. The mean anthropometric measures of full-term singletons born after CET were significantly higher than those after NET. Children who were born at less than 34 weeks showed no differences in the neonatal anthropometric measures according to the ART method. The structure of neonatal morbidity did not depend on the ART method; both after CET and NET, brain ischemia held the lead in the structure of morbidity, prematurity ranked next, and congenital pneumonia, unspecified occupied the third place.

Keywords: 
neonatology
pediatrics
assisted reproductive technologies
embryo cryopreservation
children’s health
anthropometric measures
morbidity



References: 
  1. Cobo A., Santos M.J., Castello D. et al. Outcomes of vitrified early cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos in a cryopreservation program: evaluation of 3,150 warming cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012; 98 (5): 1138–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.07.1107
  2. Kravchuk Ja.N., Kalugina A.S., Bystrova O.V. i dr. Effektivnost' i ishody programm c kriokonservatsiej embrionov v protokolah vspomogatel'nyh reproduktivnyh tehnologij. Zhurnal akusherstva i zhenskih boleznej. 2014; 63 (4): 39–46 [Kravchuk Y.N., Kalugina A.S., Bystrova O.V. et al. Effectiveness and outcomes of embryo cryopreservation programs in assisted reproductive technologies. Journal of obstetrics and women’s diseases. 2014; 63 (4): 39–46 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.17816/JOWD63439-46
  3. Naimi Z.M.-S. Obosnovanie vybora tsikla perenosa nativnyh ili kriokonservirovannyh embrionov s ispol'zovaniem molekuljarno-geneticheskih markerov v programmah vspomogatel'nyh reproduktivnyh tehnologij. Avtoref. dis. … kand. med. nauk. M., 2017; 20 s. [Naimi Z.M.-S. Obosnovaniye vybora tsikla perenosa nativnykh ili kriokonservirovannykh embrionov s ispol’zovaniyem molekulyarno-geneticheskikh markerov v programmakh vspomogatel’nykh reproduktivnykh tekhnologiy. Avtoref. dis. … kand. med. nauk. M., 2017; 20 s. (in Russ.)].
  4. Miheeva E.M., Penkina N.I. Zdorov'e detej, rozhdennyh s ispol'zovaniem vspomogatel'nyh reproduktivnyh tehnologij. Prakticheskaja meditsina. 2014; 85 (9): 47–51 [Mikheeva E.M., Penkina N.I. The health status of children conceived with assisted reproductive technologies. Prakticheskaya meditsina. 2014; 85 (9): 47–51 (in Russ.)].
  5. Malyshkina A.I., Matveeva E.A., Fil'kina O.M. i dr. Sostojanie zdorov'ja detej pervogo goda zhizni, rodivshihsja posle ekstrakorporal'nogo oplodotvorenija. Rossijskij vestnik perinatologii i pediatrii. 2019; 64 (1): 39–45 [Malyshkina A.I., Matveeva Y.A., Filkina O.M. et al. The health status of children born after in vitro fertilization in their first 12 months of life. Rossiyskiy Vestnik Perinatologii i Pediatrii = Russian Bulletin of Perinatology and Pediatrics. 2019; 64 (1): 39–45 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.21508/1027-4065-2019-64-1-39-45
  6. Baranov A.A., Namazova-Baranova L.S., Beljaeva I.A. i dr. Mediko-sotsial'nye problemy vspomogatel'nyh reproduktivnyh tehnologij s pozitsii pediatrii. Vestnik RAMN. 2015; 70 (3): 307–14 [Baranov A.A., Namazova-Baranova L.S., Belyaeva I.A. et al. Medical and social problems of assisted reproductive technologies from the standpoint of Pediatrics. Vestnik Rossiiskoi akademii meditsinskikh nauk = Annals of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. 2015; 70 (3): 307–14 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.15690/vramn.v70i3.1326
  7. Samojlova Ju.G., Matveeva M.V., Petrov I.A. i dr. Vspomogatel'nye reproduktivnye tehnologii i parametry zdorov'ja detej. Voprosy gematologii/onkologii i immunopatologii v pediatrii. 2021; 20 (1): 218–21 [Samoilova Yu.G., Matveeva M.V., Petrov I.A. et al. Assisted reproductive technologies and children’s health parameters. Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Immunopathology. 2021; 20 (1): 218–21 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.24287/1726-1708-2021-20-1-218-221
  8. Mel'nik L.A., Iova A.S., Schugareva L.M. Sostojanie zdorov'ja detej, rozhdennyh pri pomoschi vspomogatel'nyh reproduktivnyh tehnologij. Pediatrija. Zhurnal im. G.N. Speranskogo. 2017; 96 (1): 110–6 [Melnik L.A., Iova A.S., Schugareva L.M.. Health of children born with by means of assisted reproductive technologies. Pediatria. Journal named after G.N. Speransky. 2017; 96 (1): 110–6 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.24110/0031-403X-2017-96-1-110-116
  9. Kraeva O.A., Bashmakova N.V., Tsiv'jan P.B. Sostojanie zdorov'ja nedonoshennyh detej pervogo goda zhizni, zachatyh putem ekstrakorporal'nogo oplodotvorenija. Rossijskij vestnik perinatologii i pediatrii. 2018; 63 (3): 32–8 [Kraeva O.A., Bashmakova N.V., Tsyvyan P.B. The state of health of premature infants in the first year of life conceived by in vitro fertilization. Rossiyskiy Vestnik Perinatologii i Pediatrii = Russian Bulletin of Perinatology and Pediatrics. 2018; 63 (3): 32–8 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.21508/1027-4065-2018-63-3-32-38
  10. Zjuzikova Z.S., Volevodz N.N., Shestakova M.V. i dr. Analiz struktury i chastoty vrozhdennyh porokov razvitija u detej, rozhdennyh s pomosch'ju vspomogatel'nyh reproduktivnyh tehnologij. Voprosy ginekologii, akusherstva i perinatologii. 2019; 18 (6): 85–91 [Zyuzikova Z.S., Volevodz N.N., Shestakova M.V. et al. Analysis of the structure and prevalence of congenital anomalies in children born following assisted reproductive technologies. Vopr ginekol akus perinatol = Gynecology, Obstetrics and Perinatology. 2019; 18(6): 85–91 (in Russ.)]. DOI: 10.20953/1726-1678-2019-6-85-91
  11. Shi W., Xue X., Zhang S. et al. Perinatal and neonatal outcomes of 494 babies delivered from 972 vitrified embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2012; 97 (6): 1338–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.02.051
  12. Wikland M., Hardarson T., Hillensjo T. et al. Obstetric outcomes after transfer of vitrified blastocysts. Hum Reprod. 2010; 25 (7): 1699–707. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deq117