Health of singletons born after frozen embryo transfer until early adulthood: a Finnish register study

Abstract

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Is the health of singletons born after frozen embryo transfer (FET) comparable to that of singletons born after fresh embryo transfer (ET) until early adulthood? SUMMARY ANSWER The health of singletons born after FET does not differ from that of singletons born after fresh ET. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The differences in perinatal outcomes of children born after FET and fresh ET are well known. FET is associated with an increased risk of large-for-gestational-age but diminished risks of preterm birth (PTB), small-for-gestational-age and decreased perinatal mortality compared to fresh ET. However, knowledge on the long-term health after FET is scarce. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This retrospective register-based cohort study compares singletons born after FET (n = 1825) between the years 1995 and 2006 to those born after fresh ET (n = 2933) and natural conception (NC, n = 31 136) with a mean follow-up time of 18–20 years. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Singletons born after FET were compared to those born after fresh ET and NC regarding the frequencies of diagnoses in the main ICD-10 chapters (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision), the number of outpatient visits and hospital admissions, and mortality. Adjustments were made for PTB, maternal age, parity, socioeconomic status based on mother’s occupation and offspring sex. The study combines data from the Finnish Medical Birth Register, the Finnish Care Register for Health Care (CRHC) and the Cause-of-Death Register at Statistics Finland. The Student’s T-test was used for continuous variables, and the Chi-square test was used for categorical variables. Cox regression was used to estimate crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs and aHRs, respectively). A general linear model was used to compare the means of outpatient visits, hospital admissions and lengths of hospital stays per person. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE No significant differences between the FET and fresh ET groups were found in the frequency of diagnoses in any of the ICD-10 chapters or in the parameters describing the need for hospital care. However, compared to the NC group, higher proportions in the FET group had outpatient visits in the hospital (93.5% vs 92.2%, aHR 1.23, 95% CI 1.17, 1.30) or hospital admissions (48% vs 46.5%, aHR 1.28, 95% CI 1.19, 1.37). Compared to the NC group, the FET group had elevated adjusted risks of diagnoses of infectious and parasitic diseases (aHR 1.24; 95% CI 1.11, 1.38), neoplasms (aHR 1.68; 95% CI 1.48, 1.91), diseases of the eye and adnexa, the ear or mastoid process (aHR 1.11; 95% CI 1.01, 1.21), the respiratory system (aHR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06, 1.23), the digestive system (aHR 1.17; 95% CI 1.05, 1.32), the skin or subcutaneous tissue (aHR 1.28; 95% CI 1.14, 1.43) and the genitourinary system (aHR 1.27; 95% CI 1.11, 1.45), as well as congenital malformations or chromosomal abnormalities (aHR 1.31; 95% CI 1.14, 1.50) and symptoms, signs or abnormal clinical or laboratory findings (aHR 1.25, 95% CI 1.16, 1.34). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Only hospital-based inpatient and outpatient care is covered by the CRHC register, excluding milder cases diagnosed elsewhere. We were not able to study the effect of ART treatments and subfertility separately in our setting. In addition, although our cohort is reasonably sized, even larger cohorts would be needed to reliably study rare outcomes, such as cancer. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS For many ICD-10 chapters, we present the first published data on the long-term outcome of singletons born after FET. The results on FET versus fresh ET are reassuring, whereas the results on FET versus NC warrant further investigation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Finnish government research funding was obtained for this study. Funding was also obtained from the Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, the Päivikki and Sakari Sohlberg Foundation, Orion Research Foundation, Finnish Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (research grants to A.M.T.) and Finnish government research funding. The funding sources were not involved in the planning or execution of the study. The authors have no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.