Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Risk of adverse perinatal outcomes after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 13 December 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Research question

In women with singleton pregnancies conceived after assisted reproductive technologies, does the in vitro fertilization with oocyte donation (IVF-OD) affect the perinatal and maternal outcomes compared to autologous in vitro fertilization (IVF-AO)?

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing perinatal and maternal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from IVF-OD versus IVF-AO. An electronic literature search in Pubmed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane database was performed. The main outcome measures were hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, preeclampsia, severe preeclampsia, pregnancy-induced hypertension, preterm birth, early preterm birth, low birth weight, and very low birth weight.

Results

Twenty-three studies were included. IVF-OD is associated with a higher risk of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (OR 2.63, 2.17–3.18), preeclampsia (OR 2.64; 2.29–3.04), severe preeclampsia (OR 3.22; 2.30–4.49), pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 2.16; 1.79–2.62), preterm birth (OR 1.57; 1.33–1.86), early preterm birth (OR 1.80; 1.51–2.15), low birth weight (OR 1.25, 1.20–1.30), very low birth weight (OR 1.37, 1.22–1.54), gestational diabetes (OR 1.27; 1.03–1.56), and cesarean section (OR 2.28; 2.14–2.42). There was no significant difference in the risk of preterm birth or low birth weight when adjusted for preeclampsia.

Conclusions

IVF-OD patients should be considered an independent risk factor for some adverse perinatal outcomes, mainly hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, preeclampsia, and severe preeclampsia. Immunological and hormonal aspects may be involved in these results, and further research focusing in the etiopathogenesis of these pathologies are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 13 December 2019

    The original article unfortunately contained a mistake. the authors have written the wrong volume/issue/pages.

References

  1. Sauer MV. Reproduction at an advanced maternal age and maternal health. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1136–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu Y, Chen Y, Shen M, Guo Y, Wen SW, Lanes A, et al. Adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes among singleton pregnancies in women of very advanced maternal age: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Chambers GM, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology: world report on assisted reproductive technology, 2011. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(6):1067–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. De Geyter C, Calhaz-Jorge C, Kupka MS, Wyns C, Mocanu E, Motrenko T, et al. European IVF-monitoring consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Hum Reprod. 2018;33(9):1586–601.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cetinkaya MB, Siano LJ, Benadiva C, Sakkas D, Patrizio P. Reproductive outcome of women 43 years and beyond undergoing ART treatment with their own oocytes in two Connecticut university programs. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:673–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Busnelli A, Papaleo E, Del Prato D, et al. A retrospective evaluation of prognosis and cost-effectiveness of IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:315–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. La Marca A, Grisendi V, Giulini S, et al. Live birth rates in the different combinations of the Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders: a validation study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:931–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Coulam CB, Adamson SC, Annegers JF. Incidence of premature ovarian failure. Obstet Gynecol. 1986;67:604–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lydic ML, Liu JH, Rebar RW, Thomas MA, Cedars MI. Success of donor oocyte in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in recipients with and without premature ovarian failure. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:98–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ameratunga D, Weston G, Osianlis T, Catt J, Vollenhoven B. In vitro fertilisation (IVF) with donor eggs in postmenopausal women: are there differences in pregnancy outcomes in women with premature ovarian failure (POF) compared with women with physiological age-related menopause? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:511–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2012 Assisted reproductive technology fertility clinic success rates report. Atlanta (GA): US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2014.

  12. Toner JP, Grainger DA, Frazier LM. Clinical outcomes among recipients of donated eggs: an analysis of the U.S. national experience, 1996–1998. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:1038–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hudson N, Culley L, Blyth E, Norton W, Rapport F, Pacey A. Cross-border reproductive care: a review of the literature. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;22:673–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lean SC, Derricott H, Jones RL, Heazell AEP. Advanced maternal age and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0186287.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Goisis A, Remes H, Martikainen P, Klemetti R, Myrskylä M. Medically assisted reproduction and birth outcomes: a within-family analysis using Finnish population registers. Lancet. 2019

  16. Pinborg A, Wennerholm UB, Romundstad LB, Loft A, Aittomaki K, Söderström-Anttila V, et al. Why do singletons conceived after assisted reproduction technology have adverse perinatal outcome? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(2):87–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Roque M, Haahr T, Geber S, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. Fresh versus elective frozen embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(1):2–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sha T, Yin X, Cheng W, Massey IY. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vidal M, Vellvé K, González-Comadran M, Robles A, Prat M, Torné M, et al. Perinatal outcomes in children born after fresh or frozen embryo transfer: a Catalan cohort study based on 14,262 newborns. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(4):940–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Soderstrom-Anttila V, Tiitinen A, Foudila T, Hovatta O. Obstetric and perinatal outcome after oocyte donation: comparison with in-vitro fertilization pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:483–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Malchau SS, Loft A, Larsen EC, Aaris Henningsen AK, Rasmussen S, Andersen AN, et al. Perinatal outcomes in 375 children born after oocyte donation: a Danish national cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1637–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Adams DH, Clark RA, Davies MJ, de Lacey S. A meta-analysis of neonatal health outcomes from oocyte donation. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2015:1–16.

  23. Storgaard M, Loft A, Bergh C, Wennerholm UB, Söderström-Anttila V, Romundstad LB, et al. Obstetric and neonatal complications in pregnancies conceived after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2017;124(4):561–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Masoudian P, Nasr A, de Nanassy J, Fung-Kee-Fung K, Bainbridge SA, El Demellawy D. Oocyte donation pregnancies and the risk of preeclampsia or gestational hypertension: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(3):328–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Blázquez A, García D, Rodríguez A, Vassena R, Figueras F, Vernaeve V. Is oocyte donation a risk factor for preeclampsia? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(7):855–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Corradetti A, Talebi Chahvar S, Biondini V, Giannubilo SR, Tranquilli AL. PP093 maternal and fetal outcomes in oocyte donor pregnancies. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2012;2:290–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stoop D, Baumgarten M, Haentjens P, Polyzos NP, De Vos M, Verheyen G, et al. Obstetric outcome in donor oocyte pregnancies: a matched-pair analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol RBE. 2012;10:42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jeve YB, Potdar N, Opoku A, Khare M. Three-arm age-matched retrospective cohort study of obstetric outcomes of donor oocyte pregnancies. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016 May;133(2):156–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tarlatzi TB, Imbert R, Alvaro Mercadal B, Demeestere I, Venetis CA, Englert Y, et al. Does oocyte donation compared with autologous oocyte IVF pregnancies have a higher risk of preeclampsia? Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;34(1):11–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Berger AS, Fagerberg A, Olofsson JI, Scherman-Pukk C, Lindqvist PG, et al. Increased incidence of obstetric and perinatal complications in pregnancies achieved using donor oocytes and single embryo transfer in young and healthy women. A prospective hospital-based matched cohort study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;9:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Schünemann B, Guyatt O. GRADE Handbook. 2018.

  33. Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Amalraj Raja E, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update. 2018 Jan 1;24(1):35–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Brown MA, Lindheimer MD, de Swiet M, Van AA, Moutquin JM. The classification and diagnosis of the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: statement from the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP). Hypertens Pregnancy. 2001;20:Ix–xiv.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(9):1786–801.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wiggins DA, Main E. Outcomes of pregnancies achieved by donor egg in vitro fertilization--a comparison with standard in vitro fertilization pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(6):2002–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Krieg SA, Henne MB, Westphal LM. Obstetric outcomes in donor oocyte pregnancies compared with advanced maternal age in in vitro fertilization pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(1):65–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zegers-Hochschild F, Masoli D, Schwarze JE, Iaconelli A, Borges E, Pacheco IM. Reproductive performance in oocyte donors and their recipients: comparative analysis from implantation to birth and lactation. Fertil Steril. 2010 May 1;93(7):2210–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Klatsky PC, Delaney SS, Caughey AB, Tran ND, Schattman GL, Rosenwaks Z. The role of embryonic origin in preeclampsia: a comparison of autologous in vitro fertilization and ovum donor pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1387–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gibbons WE, Cedars M, Ness RB. Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies Writing Group. Toward understanding obstetrical outcome in advanced assisted reproduction: varying sperm, oocyte, and uterine source and diagnosis. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(5):1645–9.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cobo A, Serra V, Garrido N, Olmo I, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Obstetric and perinatal outcome of babies born from vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(4):1006–1015.e4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Marino JL, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Rumbold A, Whitrow MJ, Giles LC, et al. Perinatal outcomes by mode of assisted conception and sub-fertility in an Australian data linkage cohort. PLoS One. 2014 Jan 8;9(1):e80398.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. van Dorp W, Rietveld AM, Laven JS, van den Heuvel-Eibrink MM, Hukkelhoven CW, Schipper I. Pregnancy outcome of non-anonymous oocyte donation: a case-control study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;182:107–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Levron Y, Dviri M, Segol I, Yerushalmi GM, Hourvitz A, Orvieto R, et al. The ‘immunologic theory’ of preeclampsia revisited: a lesson from donor oocyte gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:383.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Baker VL, Brown MB, Luke B, Conrad KP. Association of number of retrieved oocytes with live birth rate and birth weight: an analysis of 231,815 cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):931–938.e2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Letur H, Peigné M, Ohl J, Cédrin-Durnerin I, Mathieu-D'Argent E, Scheffler F, et al. Hypertensive pathologies and egg donation pregnancies: results of a large comparative cohort study. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):284–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Nejdet S, Bergh C, Källén K, Wennerholm UB, Thurin-Kjellberg A. High risks of maternal and perinatal complications in singletons born after oocyte donation. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95(8):879–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dude AM, Yeh JS, Muasher SJ. Donor oocytes are associated with preterm birth when compared to fresh autologous in vitro fertilization cycles in singleton pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(3):660–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kamath MS, Antonisamy B, Mascarenhas M, Sunkara SK. High-risk of preterm birth and low birth weight after oocyte donation IVF: analysis of 133,785 live births. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35(3):318–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sites CK, Wilson D, Barsky M, Bernson D, Bernstein IM, Boulet S, et al. Embryo cryopreservation and preeclampsia risk. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(5):784–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Yu B, Vega M, Zaghi S, Fritz R, Jindal S, Buyuk E. Comparison of perinatal outcomes following frozen embryo transfer cycles using autologous versus donor oocytes in women 40 to 43 years old: analysis of SART CORS data. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:2025–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Cochrane. Review Manager. 5.3 ed. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, 2014.

  55. Jeve YB, Potdar N, Opoku A, Khare M. Donor oocyte conception and pregnancy complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2016;123(9):1471–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Schwarze JE, Borda P, Vásquez P, Ortega C, Villa S, Crosby JA, et al. Is the risk of preeclampsia higher in donor oocyte pregnancies? A systematic review and meta-analysis. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018;22(1):15–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Keegan DA, Krey LC, Chang HC, Noyes N. Increased risk of pregnancy- induced hypertension in young recipients of donated oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:776–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Pecks U, Maass N, Neulen J. Oocyte donation: a risk factor for pregnancy-induced hypertension. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108:23–31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. van der Hoorn ML, Lashley EE, Bianchi DW, et al. Clinical and immunologic aspects of egg donation pregnancies: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:704–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Mascarenhas M, Sunkara SK, Antonisamy B, Kamath MS. Higher risk of preterm birth and low birth weight following oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;218:60–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Morgan TK. Role of the placenta in preterm birth: a review. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33(3):258–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Imudia AN, Awonuga AO, Doyle JO, Kaimal AJ, Wright DL, Toth TL, et al. Peak serum estradiol level during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation is associated with increased risk of small for gestational age and preeclampsia in singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1374–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Pereira N, Reichman DE, Goldschlag DE, Lekovich JP, Rosenwaks Z. Impact of elevated peak serum estradiol levels during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation on the birth weight of term singletons from fresh IVF-ET cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32(527–32):0434–1.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Farhi J, Ben Haroush A, Andrawus N, et al. High serum oestradiol concentrations in IVF cycles increase the risk of pregnancy complications related to abnormal placentation. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;21:331e7.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sunkara SK, La Marca A, Seed PT, Khalaf Y. Increased risk of preterm birth and low birthweight with very high number of oocytes following IVF: an analysis of 65 868 singleton live birth outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1473–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Thilaganathan B. Placental syndromes: getting to the heart of the matter. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;49(1):7–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Shanis DL, Jessmon P, Sinaii N, Armant DR, Stratton P. IVF and increased risk for preeclampsia revisited: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2011;3(Suppl. 1):S181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Savasi VM, Mandia L, Laoreti A, Ghisoni L, Duca P, Cetin I. First trimester placental markers in oocyte donation pregnancies. Placenta. 2015;36(8):921–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Rizzo G, Aiello E, Pietrolucci ME, Arduini D. Placental volume and uterine artery Doppler evaluation at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks’ gestation in pregnancies conceived with in-vitro fertilization: comparison between autologous and donor oocyte recipients. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(6):726–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Conrad KP, Baker VL. Corpus luteal contribution to maternal pregnancy physiology and outcomes in assisted reproductive technologies. Am J Phys Regul Integr Comp Phys. 2013;304:R69–72.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. von Versen-Höynck F, Schaub AM, Chi YY, Chiu KH, Liu J, Lingis M, Stan Williams R, Rhoton-Vlasak A, Nichols WW, Fleischmann RR, Zhang W, Winn VD, Segal MS, Conrad KP, Baker VL. Increased preeclampsia risk and reduced aortic compliance with in vitro fertilization cycles in the absence of a corpus luteum. Hypertension. 2019.

  72. von Versen-Höynck F, Narasimhan P, Selamet Tierney ES, Martinez N, Conrad KP, Baker VL, Winn VD. Absent or excessive corpus luteum number is associated with altered maternal vascular health in early pregnancy. Hypertension. 2019.

  73. Shi Y, Sun Y, Hao C, Zhang H, Wei D, Zhang Y, et al. Transfer of fresh versus frozen embryos in ovulatory women. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:126–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Salha O, Sharma V, Dada T, Nugent D, Rutherford AJ, Tomlinson AJ, et al. The influence of donated gametes on the incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(9):2268–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Laresgoiti-Servitje E, Gomez-Lopez N, Olson DM. An immunological insight into the origins of pre-eclampsia. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:510–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. van der Hoorn ML, Scherjon SA, Claas FH. Egg donation pregnancy as an immunological model for solid organ transplantation. Transpl Immunol. 2011;25:89–95 44,45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Schonkeren D, Swings G, Roberts D, Claas F, de Heer E, Scherjon S. Pregnancy close to the edge: an immunosuppressive infiltrate in the chorionic plate of placentas from uncomplicated egg cell donation. PLoS One. 2012;7:e32347.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Gundogan F, Bianchi DW, Scherjon SA, Roberts DJ. Placental pathology in egg donor pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2009;93:397–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Lashley LE, Haasnoot GW, Spruyt-Gerritse M, Claas FH. Selective advantage of HLA matching in successful uncomplicated oocyte donation pregnancies. J Reprod Immunol. 2015;112:29–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Moffett A, Chazara O, Colucci F, Johnson MH. Variation of maternal KIR and & fetal HLA-C genes in reproductive failure: too early for clinical intervention. Reprod BioMed Online. 2016;33:763–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Henderson JT, Whitlock EP, O’Conner E, Senger CA, Thompson JH, Rowland MG. Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of morbidity and mortality from preeclampsia: a systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2014. Report No.: 14–05207- EF-1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Evidence Syntheses, formerly Systematic Evidence Reviews.

  82. Liu S, Liston RM, Joseph KS, Heaman M, Sauve R, Kramer MS, et al. Maternal mortality and severe morbidity associated with low-risk planned cesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery at term. CMAJ. 2007;176:455–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Visintin C, Mugglestone MA, Almerie MQ, Nherera LM, James D, Walkinshaw S. Management of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ. 2010;341:c2207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Braat DD, Schutte JM, Bernardus RE, Mooij TM, van Leeuwen FE. Maternal death related to IVF in the Netherlands 1984–2008. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2010;25:1782–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  85. Bujold E, Roberge S, Lacasse Y, Bureau M, Audibert F, Marcoux S, et al. Prevention of preeclampsia and intrauterine growth restriction with aspirin started in early pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(2 Pt 1):402–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Bhattacharya S, Kamath MS. Reducing multiple births in assisted reproduction technology. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;28:191–9 34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Stoop D, Cobo A, Silber S. Fertility preservation for age-related fertility decline. Lancet. 2014;384:1311–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Glujovsky D, Riestra B, Sueldo C, Fiszbajn G, Repping S, Nodar F, et al. Vitrification versus slow freezing for women undergoing oocyte cryopreservation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:CD010047.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, Parc de Salut Mar, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Campus Universitario UAB, 08193 Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Balmes 10, 1-1, 08007, Barcelona, Spain

    Jose Moreno - Sepulveda & Miguel A. Checa

  2. Clínica de la Mujer Medicina Reproductiva, Alejandro Navarrete 2606, Viña del Mar, Chile

    Jose Moreno - Sepulveda

  3. GRI-BCN, Barcelona Infertility Research Group, IMIM, Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques, Carrer del Dr. Aiguader, 88, 08003, Barcelona, Spain

    Miguel A. Checa

Authors
  1. Jose Moreno - Sepulveda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Miguel A. Checa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose Moreno - Sepulveda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Claudio Bini

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 266 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Moreno - Sepulveda, J., Checa, M.A. Risk of adverse perinatal outcomes after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 36, 2017–2037 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01552-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01552-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation