Assisted reproductive technology surveillance - united states, 2014

MMWR Surveillance Summaries

Volumn 66, Issue 6, 2017, Pages 1-24

  Sunderam, Saswati ^a   Kissin, Dmitry M ^a   Crawford, Sara B ^a   Folger, Suzanne G ^a   Jamieson, Denise J ^a   Warner, Lee ^a   Barfield, Wanda D ^a  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR CHRONIC DISEASE PREVENTION AND HEALTH PROMOTION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; INFERTILITY THERAPY; LOW BIRTH WEIGHT; MULTIPLE PREGNANCY; NEWBORN; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREMATURE BIRTH; PREMATURITY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UNITED STATES; UTILIZATION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT, LOW BIRTH WEIGHT; INFANT, NEWBORN; INFANT, PREMATURE; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY OUTCOME; PREGNANCY, MULTIPLE; PREMATURE BIRTH; REPRODUCTIVE TECHNIQUES, ASSISTED; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85012875141     PISSN: 15460738     EISSN: 15458636     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6606a1     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. CDC; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2014 assisted reproductive technology fertility clinic success rates report. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2016.
2. CDC; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; RESOLVE. 1995 assisted reproductive technology success rates. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1997.
3. CDC; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2013 assisted reproductive technology national summary report. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2015.
4. Schieve LA, Peterson HB, Meikle SF, et al. Live-birth rates and multiplebirth risk using in vitro fertilization. JAMA 1999;282:1832-8. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.19.1832.
5. Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Burnett NM, Wilcox LS. Does assisted hatching pose a risk for monozygotic twinning in pregnancies conceived through in vitro fertilization? Fertil Steril 2000;74:288-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00602-6.
6. Reynolds MA, Schieve LA, Martin JA, Jeng G, Macaluso M. Trends in multiple births conceived using assisted reproductive technology, United States, 1997-2000. Pediatrics 2003;111:1159-62.
7. Reynolds MA, Schieve LA, Jeng G, Peterson HB, Wilcox LS. Risk of multiple birth associated with in vitro fertilization using donor eggs. Am J Epidemiol 2001;154:1043-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ aje/154.11.1043.
8. Vahratian A, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, Jeng G. Live-birth rates and multiple-birth risk of assisted reproductive technology pregnancies conceived using thawed embryos, USA 1999-2000. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1442-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deg284.
9. Wright V, Schieve LA, Vahratian A, Reynolds MA. Monozygotic twinning associated with day 5 embryo transfer in pregnancies conceived after IVF. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1831-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/deh338.
10. Kissin DM, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA. Multiple-birth risk associated with IVF and extended embryo culture: USA, 2001. Hum Reprod 2005;20:2215-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei025.
11. Reynolds MA, Schieve LA. Trends in embryo transfer practices and multiple gestation for IVF procedures in the USA, 1996-2002. Hum Reprod 2006;21:694-700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei363.
12. Murray SR, Norman JE. Multiple pregnancies following assisted reproductive technologies-a happy consequence or double trouble? Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2014;19:222-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. siny.2014.03.001.
13. Workshop Group TEC; The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group. Multiple gestation pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1856-64. http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/humrep/15.8.1856.
14. MacKay AP, Berg CJ, King JC, Duran C, Chang J. Pregnancy-related mortality among women with multifetal pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:563-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000200045.91015.c6.
15. Bukulmez O. Does assisted reproductive technology cause birth defects? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2009;21:260-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ GCO.0b013e32832924a7.
16. Reefhuis J, Honein MA, Schieve LA, Correa A, Hobbs CA, Rasmussen SA; National Birth Defects Prevention Study. Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the United States. Hum Reprod 2009;24:360-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den387.
17. Fountain C, Zhang Y, Kissin DM, et al. Association between assisted reproductive technology conception and autism in California, 1997- 2007. Am J Public Health 2015;105:963-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.2014.302383.
18. Boulet SL, Kirby RS, Reefhuis J, et al.; States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (SMART) Collaborative. Assisted Reproductive Technology and Birth Defects Among Liveborn Infants in Florida, Massachusetts, and Michigan, 2000-2010. JAMA Pediatr 2016;170:e154934. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.4934.
19. Schieve LA, Meikle SF, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Jeng G, Wilcox LS. Low and very low birth weight in infants conceived with use of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2002;346:731-7. http://dx.doi. org/10.1056/NEJMoa010806.
20. Schieve LA, Ferre C, Peterson HB, Macaluso M, Reynolds MA, Wright VC. Perinatal outcome among singleton infants conceived through assisted reproductive technology in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:1144- 53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000127037.12652.76.
21. Farr SL, Schieve LA, Jamieson DJ. Pregnancy loss among pregnancies conceived through assisted reproductive technology, United States, 1999-2002. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:1380-8. http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/aje/kwm035.
22. Kramer MR, Hogue CR. What causes racial disparities in very preterm birth? A biosocial perspective. Epidemiol Rev 2009;31:84-98. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajerev/mxp003.
23. US Census Bureau. Annual estimates of the resident population for selected age groups by sex for the United States, states, counties, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth and municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau, Population Division; 2014. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview. xhtml?pid=PEP_2014_PEPAGESEX&prodType=table.
24. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: Final Data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015;64:1-64.
25. CDC; American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; RESOLVE. 1996 assisted reproductive technology success rates. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1998.
26. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, et al. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance-United States, 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ 2015;64(No. SS-11). http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6411a1.
27. Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD, Kushnir VA, Jamieson DJ; National ART Surveillance System Group. Number of embryos transferred after in vitro fertilization and good perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:239-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000106.
28. Stillman RJ, Richter KS, Jones HW Jr. Refuting a misguided campaign against the goal of single-embryo transfer and singleton birth in assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2599-607. http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/humrep/det317.
29. Kupka MS, D'Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, et al.; European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM); European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 2016;31:233-48.
30. Sunderam S, Kissin DM, Crawford SB, Folger SG, Jamieson DJ, Barfield WD. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance-United States, 2011. MMWR Surveill Summ 2014;63(No. SS-10).
31. Henne MB, Bundorf MK. Insurance mandates and trends in infertility treatments. Fertil Steril 2008;89:66-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2007.01.167.
32. Hamilton BH, McManus B. The effects of insurance mandates on choices and outcomes in infertility treatment markets. Health Econ 2012;21:994-1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.1776
33. Boulet SL, Crawford S, Zhang Y, et al.; States Monitoring ART Collaborative. Embryo transfer practices and perinatal outcomes by insurance mandate status. Fertil Steril 2015;104:403-9.e1. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.05.015.
34. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2012;97:835-42. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.050.
35. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Criteria for number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2013;99:44-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.038.
36. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines on the number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril 2004;82(Suppl 1):1-2. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.07.937.
37. Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril 2006;86(Suppl 1):S51-2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1473.
38. Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril 2008;90(Suppl):S163-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.053.
39. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Guidelines on number of embryos transferred. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1518- 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.08.059.
40. Kissin DM, Kulkarni AD, Mneimneh A, et al.; National ART Surveillance System (NASS) group. Embryo transfer practices and multiple births resulting from assisted reproductive technology: an opportunity for prevention. Fertil Steril 2015;103:954-61. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.127.
41. Coddington CC, Jensen JR. Multiple pregnancy: changing expectations for patients and patterns for physicians. Fertil Steril 2015;103:898-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.027.
42. Maheshwari A, Griffiths S, Bhattacharya S. Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:107-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq028.
43. Jain T, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD. Insurance coverage and outcomes of in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med 2002;347:661-6. http://dx.doi. org/10.1056/NEJMsa013491.
44. Nachtigall RD, MacDougall K, Davis AC, Beyene Y. Expensive but worth it: older parents' attitudes and opinions about the costs and insurance coverage for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2012;97:82-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.10.019.
45. Kissin DM, Boulet SL, Jamieson DJ; Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance and Research Team. Fertility Treatments in the United States: Improving Access and Outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2016;128:387- 90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001419.
46. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Multiple gestation associated with infertility therapy: an American Society for Reproductive Medicine Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2012;97:825-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.11.048.
47. Behrman RE, Butler AS, editors. Preterm birth: causes, consequences, and prevention. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.
48. Boulet SL, Schieve LA, Nannini A, et al. Perinatal outcomes of twin births conceived using assisted reproduction technology: a populationbased study. Hum Reprod 2008;23:1941-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/den169.
49. Wright VC, Schieve LA, Reynolds MA, Jeng G. Assisted reproductive technology surveillance-United States, 2000. MMWR Surveill Summ 2003;52. Erratum in: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003;52:942.
50. Grobman WA, Milad MP, Stout J, Klock SC. Patient perceptions of multiple gestations: an assessment of knowledge and risk aversion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:920-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/ mob.2001.117305.
51. Blennborn M, Nilsson S, Hillervik C, Hellberg D. The couple's decisionmaking in IVF: one or two embryos at transfer? Hum Reprod 2005;20:1292-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh785.
52. Pinborg A, Loft A, Schmidt L, Andersen AN. Attitudes of IVF/ICSItwin mothers towards twins and single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2003;18:621-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deg145.
53. Ryan GL, Sparks AE, Sipe CS, Syrop CH, Dokras A, Van Voorhis BJ. A mandatory single blastocyst transfer policy with educational campaign in a United States IVF program reduces multiple gestation rates without sacrificing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril 2007;88:354-60. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.03.001.
54. Hope N, Rombauts L. Can an educational DVD improve the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer? a randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril 2010;94:489-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. fertnstert.2009.03.080.
55. Murray S, Shetty A, Rattray A, Taylor V, Bhattacharya S. A randomized comparison of alternative methods of information provision on the acceptability of elective single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2004;19:911-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh176.
56. Lemos EV, Zhang D, Van Voorhis BJ, Hu XH. Healthcare expenses associated with multiple vs singleton pregnancies in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209:586.e1-11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. ajog.2013.10.005.
57. Henne MB, Bundorf MK. The effects of competition on assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Fertil Steril 2010;93:1820-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.159.
58. Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, et al. Application of a validated prediction model for in vitro fertilization: comparison of live birth rates and multiple birth rates with 1 embryo transferred over 2 cycles vs 2 embryos in 1 cycle. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:676.e1-7. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.005.
59. Fiddelers AAA, Severens JL, Dirksen CD, Dumoulin JC, Land JA, Evers JL. Economic evaluations of single- versus double-embryo transfer in IVF. Hum Reprod Update 2007;13:5-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ humupd/dml053.
60. Crawford S, Boulet S, Mneimneh A, et al. Costs of achieving live birth from assisted reproductive technology: a comparison of sequential single and double embryo transfer approaches. Fertil Steril 2016;105:444-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.10.032.
61. Kulkarni AD, Jamieson DJ, Jones HW Jr, et al. Fertility treatments and multiple births in the United States. N Engl J Med 2013;369:2218-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1301467.
62. Callaghan WM, MacDorman MF, Rasmussen SA, Qin C, Lackritz EM. The contribution of preterm birth to infant mortality rates in the United States. Pediatrics 2006;118:1566-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2006-0860.
63. Tanner K, Sabrine N, Wren C. Cardiovascular malformations among preterm infants. Pediatrics 2005;116:e833-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2005-0397.
64. Rasmussen SA, Moore CA, Paulozzi LJ, Rhodenhiser EP. Risk for birth defects among premature infants: a population-based study. J Pediatr 2001;138:668-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mpd.2001.112249.
65. Kissin DM, Jamieson DJ, Barfield WD. Monitoring health outcomes of assisted reproductive technology. N Engl J Med 2014;371:91-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1404371.
66. CDC. National public health action plan for the detection, prevention, and management of infertility. Atlanta, GA: CDC; 2014. https://www. cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Infertility/PDF/DRH_NAP_Final_508.pdf.
67. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK. Three decades of twin births in the United States, 1980-2009. NCHS Data Brief 2012;80:1-8.
68. D'Angelo DV, Whitehead N, Helms K, Barfield W, Ahluwalia IB. Birth outcomes of intended pregnancies among women who used assisted reproductive technology, ovulation stimulation, or no treatment. Fertil Steril 2011;96:314-320.e2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.073.
69. Barradas DT, Barfield WD, Wright V, D'Angelo D, Manning SE, Schieve LA. Assessment of assisted reproductive technology use questions: Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System Survey, 2004. Public Health Rep 2012;127:516-23.
70. Kissin DM, Jamieson DJ, Barfield WD. Assisted reproductive technology program reporting [Letter]. JAMA 2011;306:2564; author reply 2564-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1843.
71. Mneimneh AS, Boulet SL, Sunderam S, et al.; States Monitoring ART (SMART) Collaborative. States Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (SMART) Collaborative: data collection, linkage, dissemination, and use. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2013;22:571-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2013.4452