Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Safety of assisted reproduction, assessed by risk of abnormalities in children born after use of in vitro fertilization techniques

Nature Clinical Practice Urology volume 5, pages 140–150 (2008)Cite this article

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technologies are increasingly used in the treatment of both male and female infertility. The techniques, including in vitro fertilization, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection as an adjunctive treatment, represent a tremendous step forward for infertile couples who previously had no treatment options. As we move towards the 30th anniversary of the birth of the first baby conceived by in vitro fertilization, questions about the safety of these procedures linger. We review here the available literature regarding the safety of assisted reproductive technologies; these data are made far more robust by the inclusion of long-term follow-up data from the first generation of children arising after the introduction of these technologies.

Key Points

  • Births resulting from use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are increasing in frequency but questions about the safety remain unanswered

  • The existing data for ART paint an incomplete picture of the risks to offspring; safety issues are still being studied

  • ART follow-up studies typically assess several outcomes—congenital abnormalities, developmental delays or abnormalities, hormonal dysfunction, and epigenetic effects, and the role of multiple gestation on birth outcomes—but accounting completely for the risks related to the latter can be difficult

  • Single-embryo transfer mitigates the risk of multiple gestation, thereby substantially decreasing the risk of congenital and developmental abnormalities

  • The absolute risk of the above disorders is higher in ART children than in spontaneously conceived children but is still low for the majority of the conditions considered, and correction for maternal and/or paternal factors can make the differences nonsignificant

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steptoe PC and Edwards RG (1978) Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 2: 366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Andersen AN et al. (2007) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2003. Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 22: 1513–1525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wright VC et al. (2006) Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2003. MMWR Surveill Summ 55: 1–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wright VC et al. (2005) Assisted reproductive technology surveillance—United States, 2002. MMWR Surveill Summ 54: 1–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pinborg A (2005) IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies: risks and prevention. Hum Reprod Update 11: 575–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaufman GE et al. (1998) Neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with triplet pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 91: 342–348

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Klemetti R et al. (2005) Children born after assisted fertilization have an increased rate of major congenital anomalies. Fertil Steril 84: 1300–1307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Reddy UM et al. (2007) Infertility, assisted reproductive technology, and adverse pregnancy outcomes: executive summary of a National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop. Obstet Gynecol 109: 967–977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Schieve LA et al. (2005) Risk of birth defects among children conceived with assisted reproductive technology: providing an epidemiologic context to the data. Fertil Steril 84: 1320–1324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zegers-Hochschild F et al. (2006) The ICMART glossary on ART terminology. Hum Reprod 21: 1968–1970

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Helmerhorst FM et al. (2004) Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ 328: 261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jackson RA et al. Perinatal outcomes in singletons following in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 103: 551–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Rimm AA et al. (2004) A meta-analysis of controlled studies comparing major malformation rates in IVF and ICSI infants with naturally conceived children. J Assist Reprod Genet 21: 437–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McGovern PG et al. Increased risk of preterm birth in singleton pregnancies resulting from in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer or gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 82: 1514–1520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dhont M et al. (1997) Perinatal outcome of pregnancies after assisted reproduction: a case-control study. J Assist Reprod Genet 14: 575–580

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Gerris J et al. (2004) A real-life prospective health economic study of elective single embryo transfer versus two-embryo transfer in first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod 19: 917–923

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pinborg A et al. (2003) Morbidity in a Danish national cohort of 472 IVF/ICSI twins, 1132 non-IVF/ICSI twins and 634 IVF/ICSI singletons: health-related and social implications for the children and their families. Hum Reprod 18: 1234–1243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pinborg A et al. (2004) Neonatal outcome in a Danish national cohort of 8602 children born after in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the role of twin pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 83: 1071–1078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pinborg A et al. (2004) Hospital care utilization of IVF/ICSI twins followed until 2–7 years of age: a controlled Danish national cohort study. Hum Reprod 19: 2529–2536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Pinborg A et al. (2007) Vanishing twins: a predictor of small-for-gestational age in IVF singletons. Hum Reprod 22: 2707–2714

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tiitinen A et al. (2003) Impact of elective single embryo transfer on the twin pregnancy rate. Hum Reprod 18: 1449–1453

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Klemetti R et al. (2006) Health of children born as a result of in vitro fertilization. Pediatrics 118: 1819–1827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Poikkeus P et al. (2007) Obstetric and neonatal outcome after single embryo transfer. Hum. Reprod 22: 1073–1079

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Thurin A et al. (2004) Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 351: 2392–2402

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bergh T et al. (1999) Deliveries and children born after in-vitro fertilisation in Sweden 1982–95: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 354: 1579–1585

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kallen B et al. (2005) Temporal trends in multiple births after in vitro fertilisation in Sweden, 1982–2001: a register study. BMJ 331: 382–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Schieve LA et al. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 346: 731–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gerris JM (2005) Single embryo transfer and IVF/ICSI outcome: a balanced appraisal. Hum Reprod Update 11: 105–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bowen JR et al. (1998) Medical and developmental outcome at 1 year for children conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Lancet 351: 1529–1534

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Leslie GI et al. (2003) Children conceived using ICSI do not have an increased risk of delayed mental development at 5 years of age. Hum Reprod 18: 2067–2072

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bonduelle M et al. (1998) Mental development of 201 ICSI children at 2 years of age. Lancet 351: 1553

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bonduelle M et al. (2003) Developmental outcome at 2 years of age for children born after ICSI compared with children born after IVF. Hum Reprod 18: 342–350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Place I and Englert Y (2003) A prospective longitudinal study of the physical, psychomotor, and intellectual development of singleton children up to 5 years who were conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection compared with children conceived spontaneously and by in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 80: 1388–1397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Leunens L et al. (2006) Cognitive and motor development of 8-year-old children born after ICSI compared to spontaneously conceived children. Hum Reprod 21: 2922–2929

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ponjaert-Kristoffersen I et al. (2005) International collaborative study of intracytoplasmic sperm injection-conceived, in vitro fertilization-conceived, and naturally conceived 5-year-old child outcomes: cognitive and motor assessments. Pediatrics 115: e283–e289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Koivurova S et al. (2003) Growth, psychomotor development and morbidity up to 3 years of age in children born after IVF. Hum Reprod 18: 2328–2336

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Stromberg B et al. (2002) Neurological sequelae in children born after in-vitro fertilisation: a population-based study. Lancet 359: 461–465

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Sutcliffe AG et al. (2001) Outcome in the second year of life after in-vitro fertilisation by intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a UK case-control study. Lancet 357: 2080–2084

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Neri QV et al. (2002) Screening for cognitive and motor development of 3-year-old ICSI and IVF children. Fertil Steril 78: s250–s251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Neri QV et al. (2001) Genetic assessment and development of children that result from assisted reproductive technology. Clin Obstet Gynecol 49: 134–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Belva F et al. (2007) Medical outcome of 8-year-old singleton ICSI children (born > or =32 weeks' gestation) and a spontaneously conceived comparison group. Hum Reprod 22: 506–515

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Hvidtjorn D et al. (2006) Cerebral palsy among children born after in vitro fertilization: the role of preterm delivery—a population-based, cohort study. Pediatrics 118: 475–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Anthony S et al. (2002) Congenital malformations in 4224 children conceived after IVF. Hum Reprod 17: 2089–2095

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Hansen M et al. (2002) The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 346: 725–730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Westergaard HB et al. (1999) Danish National In-Vitro Fertilization Registry 1994 and 1995: a controlled study of births, malformations and cytogenetic findings. Hum Reprod 14: 1896–1902

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Loft A et al. (1999) A Danish national cohort of 730 infants born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) 1994–1997. Hum Reprod 14: 2143–2148

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhu JL et al. (2006) Infertility, infertility treatment, and congenital malformations: Danish national birth cohort. BMJ 333: 679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Koivurova S et al. (2002) Neonatal outcome and congenital malformations in children born after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 17: 1391–1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ludwig M and Katalinic A (2002) Malformation rate in fetuses and children conceived after ICSI: results of a prospective cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online 5: 171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Katalinic A et al. (2004) Pregnancy course and outcome after intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a controlled, prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 81: 1604–1616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zadori J et al. (2003) Dilemma of increased obstetric risk in pregnancies following IVF-ET. J Assist Reprod Genet 20: 216–221

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Wennerholm UB et al. (2000) Incidence of congenital malformations in children born after ICSI. Hum Reprod 15: 944–948

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ericson A and Kallen B (2001) Congenital malformations in infants born after IVF: a population-based study. Hum Reprod 16: 504–509

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Sutcliffe AG et al. (1995) Minor congenital anomalies, major congenital malformations and development in children conceived from cryopreserved embryos. Hum Reprod 10: 3332–3337

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Olson CK et al. In vitro fertilization is associated with an increase in major birth defects. Fertil Steril 84: 1308–1315

  56. Lie RT et al. Birth defects in children conceived by ICSI compared with children conceived by other IVF-methods; a meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 34: 696–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Hansen M et al. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects—a systematic review. Hum Reprod 20: 328–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kurinczuk JJ and Bower C (1997) Birth defects in infants conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection: an alternative interpretation. BMJ 315: 1260–1265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Bonduelle M et al. (1996) Prospective follow-up study of 423 children born after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 11: 1558–1564

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Mau Kai C et al. (2007) Reduced serum testosterone levels in infant boys conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 92: 2598–2603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Soderstrom-Anttila V et al. (2006) Obstetric and perinatal outcome and preliminary results of development of children born after in vitro maturation of oocytes. Hum Reprod 21: 1508–1513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Cox GF et al. (2002) Intracytoplasmic sperm injection may increase the risk of imprinting defects. Am J Hum Genet 71: 162–164

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Maher ER et al. (2003) Beckwith–Wiedemann syndrome and assisted reproduction technology (ART). J Med Genet 40: 62–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Maher ER (2005) Imprinting and assisted reproductive technology. Hum Mol Genet 14: R133–R138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Ludwig M et al. (2005) Increased prevalence of imprinting defects in patients with Angelman syndrome born to subfertile couples. J Med Genet 42: 289–291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Klip H et al. (2001) Risk of cancer in the offspring of women who underwent ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod 16: 2451–2458

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Bruinsma F et al. (2000) Incidence of cancer in children born after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 15: 604–607

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Moll AC et al. (2003) Incidence of retinoblastoma in children born after in-vitro fertilisation. Lancet 361: 309–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Bonduelle M et al. (2002) Prenatal testing in ICSI pregnancies: incidence of chromosomal anomalies in 1586 karyotypes and relation to sperm parameters. Hum Reprod 17: 2600–2614

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Foresta C et al. (2005) Genetic abnormalities among severely oligospermic men who are candidates for intracytoplasmic sperm injection. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 90: 152–156

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Simpson JL and Lamb DJ (2001) Genetic effects of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Semin Reprod Med 19: 239–249

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Hansen M et al. (2007) Practitioner reporting of birth defects in children born following assisted reproductive technology: does it still have a role in surveillance of birth defects? Hum Reprod 22: 516–520

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  73. Buck Louis GM et al. (2005) Research hurdles complicating the analysis of infertility treatment and child health. Hum Reprod 20: 12–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. JP Alukal is a Fellow in and LI Lipshultz is Professor in and the Chair of the Division of Male Reproductive Medicine and Surgery in the Scott Department of Urology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.,

    Joseph P Alukal & Larry I Lipshultz

Authors
  1. Joseph P Alukal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Larry I Lipshultz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph P Alukal.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alukal, J., Lipshultz, L. Safety of assisted reproduction, assessed by risk of abnormalities in children born after use of in vitro fertilization techniques. Nat Rev Urol 5, 140–150 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1045

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpuro1045

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing