Academic Performance in Adolescents Aged 15-16 Years Born After Frozen Embryo Transfer Compared with Fresh Embryo Transfer: a Nationwide Registry-based Cohort Study
Overview
Affiliations
Objective: To assess academic performance in singletons aged 15-16 years conceived after frozen embryo transfer (FET) compared with singletons born after fresh embryo transfer (ET) in Danish cohorts born from 1995 to 2001.
Design: Danish national registry-based cohort study.
Setting: Danish national registries.
Population: All 6495 singletons conceived after assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment in Denmark from 1995 to 2001 [FET (n) = 423; fresh ET (n) = 6072].
Methods: Mean test scores on a national standardised and international comparable grading-scale. Comparisons of test score were first made in univariate analysis (Model 1) and secondly in a multivariate linear model (Model 2) adjusting for relevant reproductive and socio-demographic covariates such as the occupational and educational level of the parents. Sensitivity analyses on FET-IVF (in vitro fertilisation) versus fresh ET-IVF and FET-ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) versus fresh ET-ICSI were made. Linear mixed models were used to account for the correlation in test scores of siblings for continuous outcome.
Main Outcome Measures: Mean overall test score and test score in Danish, mathematics, English, and physics/chemistry.
Results: Crude and adjusted mean test scores were similar for adolescents conceived after FET compared with fresh ET. The crude mean difference was +0.11 (95% CI -0.11; 0.34), and the adjusted mean difference was +0.12 (95% CI -0.09; 0.34).
Conclusions: Adolescents conceived after FET had similar academic performance at 15-16 of years of age compared with children conceived after fresh ET.
Tweetable Abstract: Using frozen embryos in fertility treatment does not affect school performance in Danish adolescents aged 15-16 years.
Li J, Zhou W, Gao S, Zhao J, Yang X, Guan S iScience. 2023; 26(12):108358.
PMID: 38077145 PMC: 10700843. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2023.108358.
Quintigliano M, Carone N, Speranza A, Tanzilli A, Baiocco R, Barone L Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022; 19(24).
PMID: 36554637 PMC: 9778924. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph192416758.
Boutet M, Eixarch E, Ahumada-Droguett P, Nakaki A, Crovetto F, Civico M Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 60(5):646-656.
PMID: 35468238 PMC: 9828610. DOI: 10.1002/uog.24920.
When Should We Freeze Embryos? Current Data for Fresh and Frozen Embryo Replacement IVF Cycles.
Kalinderis M, Kalinderi K, Srivastava G, Homburg R Reprod Sci. 2021; 28(11):3061-3072.
PMID: 34033111 DOI: 10.1007/s43032-021-00628-w.
Luke B, Brown M, Ethen M, Canfield M, Watkins S, Wantman E J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021; 38(6):1481-1492.
PMID: 33797677 PMC: 8266932. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02170-9.