Risks of Neonatal Anomalies and Obstetric Complications in 7378 Singleton Births After Frozen-thawed and Fresh Embryo Transfers in Japan: An Analysis Using Doubly Robust Estimation

Overview

Journal Reprod Med Biol

Date 2025 Jan 24

PMID 39850934

Authors

Sanae Terada

Toshihiro Habara

Ryo Terada

Toshiharu Mitsuhashi

Ryuhei So

Nanako Yoshioka

Yumi Masumoto

Yukiko Kosaka

Rei Hirata

Nobuyoshi Hayashi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare risks of neonatal anomalies and obstetric complications among frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), fresh embryo transfer (FreshET), and non-assisted reproductive technology (non-ART) treatments in infertile women.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 7378 singleton births (2643 non-ART, 4219 FET, 516 FreshET) from 2013 to 2022. Outcomes were compared using inverse probability weighting regression adjustment, with adjustment for maternal factors.

Results: After adjustment, the risk of neonatal anomalies did not differ significantly between FET and non-ART, or FreshET and non-ART. FET was associated with increased risks of obstetric complications compared with non-ART, including placenta accreta (adjusted risk difference [ARD] 3.61%, 95% CI 2.95-4.28), placenta previa (ARD 0.55%, 95% CI 0.14-0.96), postpartum hemorrhage (ARD 7.08%, 95% CI 6.03-8.13), gestational hypertension (ARD 3.57%, 95% CI 2.47-4.68), gestational diabetes (ARD 0.96%, 95% CI 0.17-1.75), and preterm birth (ARD 2.13%, 95% CI 1.23-3.02). FET also showed higher risk of high birth weight (ARD 0.97%, 95% CI 0.42-1.52). FreshET showed no significant differences in obstetric complications.

Conclusions: While the risk of neonatal anomalies did not differ among treatments, FET was associated with increased obstetric complication risks. These findings underscore the need for careful management of FET pregnancies and further research to improve treatment protocols.

Citing Articles

Risks of neonatal anomalies and obstetric complications in 7378 singleton births after frozen-thawed and fresh embryo transfers in Japan: An analysis using doubly robust estimation.

Terada S, Habara T, Terada R, Mitsuhashi T, So R, Yoshioka N Reprod Med Biol. 2025; 24(1):e12623.

PMID: 39850934 PMC: 11755112. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12623.

References

Busnelli A, Schirripa I, Fedele F, Bulfoni A, Levi-Setti P . Obstetric and perinatal outcomes following programmed compared to natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2022; 37(7):1619-1641. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac073. View

Hoorsan H, Mirmiran P, Chaichian S, Moradi Y, Hoorsan R, Jesmi F . Congenital Malformations in Infants of Mothers Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technologies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Study. J Prev Med Public Health. 2017; 50(6):347-360. PMC: 5717326. DOI: 10.3961/jpmph.16.122. View

Pinborg A, Henningsen A, Loft A, Malchau S, Forman J, Nyboe Andersen A . Large baby syndrome in singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET): is it due to maternal factors or the cryotechnique?. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(3):618-27. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/det440. View

Roque M, Valle M, Sampaio M, Geber S . Obstetric outcomes after fresh versus frozen-thawed embryo transfers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018; 22(3):253-260. PMC: 6106638. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20180049. View

Hansen M, Kurinczuk J, Bower C, Webb S . The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346(10):725-30. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa010035. View

Maheshwari A, Raja E, Bhattacharya S . Obstetric and perinatal outcomes after either fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer: an analysis of 112,432 singleton pregnancies recorded in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority anonymized dataset. Fertil Steril. 2016; 106(7):1703-1708. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.047. View

Warner L, Jamieson D, Barfield W . CDC releases a National Public Health Action Plan for the Detection, Prevention, and Management of Infertility. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2015; 24(7):548-9. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2015.5355. View

Chukwubuike K, Ozor I, Enyi N . Prevalence and pattern of birth defects in the two tertiary hospitals in Enugu, South East Nigeria: A hospital-based observational study. Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2020; 17(3 & 4):85-89. PMC: 8051625. DOI: 10.4103/ajps.AJPS_59_20. View

Saito K, Kuwahara A, Ishikawa T, Morisaki N, Miyado M, Miyado K . Endometrial preparation methods for frozen-thawed embryo transfer are associated with altered risks of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placenta accreta, and gestational diabetes mellitus. Hum Reprod. 2019; 34(8):1567-1575. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dez079. View

10.

Pinborg A, Loft A, Henningsen A, Rasmussen S, Nyboe Andersen A . Infant outcome of 957 singletons born after frozen embryo replacement: the Danish National Cohort Study 1995-2006. Fertil Steril. 2009; 94(4):1320-1327. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.091. View

11.

Yu H, Yang Q, Sun X, Chen G, Qian N, Cai R . Association of birth defects with the mode of assisted reproductive technology in a Chinese data-linkage cohort. Fertil Steril. 2018; 109(5):849-856. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.012. View

12.

Garne E, Vinkel Hansen A, Birkelund A, Andersen A . Major congenital anomalies in a Danish region. Dan Med J. 2014; 61(6):A4825. View

13.

Hansen M, Kurinczuk J, Milne E, de Klerk N, Bower C . Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013; 19(4):330-53. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmt006. View

14.

Pelkonen S, Hartikainen A, Ritvanen A, Koivunen R, Martikainen H, Gissler M . Major congenital anomalies in children born after frozen embryo transfer: a cohort study 1995-2006. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(7):1552-7. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu088. View

15.

Davies M, Moore V, Willson K, van Essen P, Priest K, Scott H . Reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(19):1803-13. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1008095. View

16.

Ali M, Prieto-Alhambra D, Lopes L, Ramos D, Bispo N, Ichihara M . Propensity Score Methods in Health Technology Assessment: Principles, Extended Applications, and Recent Advances. Front Pharmacol. 2019; 10:973. PMC: 6760465. DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00973. View

17.

Sha T, Yin X, Cheng W, Massey I . Pregnancy-related complications and perinatal outcomes resulting from transfer of cryopreserved versus fresh embryos in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2018; 109(2):330-342.e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.019. View

18.

Ishihara O, Araki R, Kuwahara A, Itakura A, Saito H, Adamson G . Impact of frozen-thawed single-blastocyst transfer on maternal and neonatal outcome: an analysis of 277,042 single-embryo transfer cycles from 2008 to 2010 in Japan. Fertil Steril. 2013; 101(1):128-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.025. View

19.

Terada S, Habara T, Terada R, Mitsuhashi T, So R, Yoshioka N . Risks of neonatal anomalies and obstetric complications in 7378 singleton births after frozen-thawed and fresh embryo transfers in Japan: An analysis using doubly robust estimation. Reprod Med Biol. 2025; 24(1):e12623. PMC: 11755112. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12623. View

20.

Mezawa H, Tomotaki A, Yamamoto-Hanada K, Ishitsuka K, Ayabe T, Konishi M . Prevalence of Congenital Anomalies in the Japan Environment and Children's Study. J Epidemiol. 2018; 29(7):247-256. PMC: 6556438. DOI: 10.2188/jea.JE20180014. View