Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence-Based Pre-Pregnancy Counseling for Oocyte Donation Pregnancies: a Systematic Review and Guide for Physicians

  • Review
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is well known that oocyte donation (OD) pregnancies are associated with higher complication rates compared to autologous pregnancies. However, evidence-based information for pre-pregnancy counseling designed for health care workers is scarce. Therefore, a systematic literature search was performed to find articles that address pre-pregnancy counseling before OD.

A systematic search was conducted in September 2020 in various databases, including PubMed and Embase. Nine (systematic) reviews and meta-analyses were included that reported on pre-pregnancy advice in OD pregnancies.

Studies are consistent in documenting a higher risk for hypertensive disorders, cesarean section, preterm birth, postpartum hemorrhage, and low birth weight. Based on these complications, pre-pregnancy advice is mentioned in all included systematic reviews to prevent complications in the next pregnancy. All studies recommend counseling women on the increased risk of complications during OD pregnancy. Other recommendations include the prophylactic use of aspirin in pregnancy and restriction to single embryo transfer. Individualized appropriate surveillance and management strategies should be considered for every patient achieving pregnancy by OD.

In conclusion, we provide a summary of the most important outcomes in OD pregnancies, and thereby offer a guide for pre-pregnancy counseling.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

References

  1. Shufaro Y, Schenker JG. The risks and outcome of pregnancy in an advanced maternal age in oocyte donation cycles. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(16):1703–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2013.871702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Saito S, Nakabayashi Y, Nakashima A, Shima T, Yoshino O. A new era in reproductive medicine: consequences of third-party oocyte donation for maternal and fetal health. Seminars in immunopathology. 2016;38(6):687–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00281-016-0577-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Savasi VM, Mandia L, Laoreti A, Cetin I. Maternal and fetal outcomes in oocyte donation pregnancies. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(5):620–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmw012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kushnir VA, Gleicher N. Fresh versus cryopreserved oocyte donation. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes. 2016;23(6):451–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/med.0000000000000290.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S, Dirnfeld M. The effect of paternal age on oocyte donation outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2016;71(5):301–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0000000000000311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kamath MS, Sunkara SK. Perinatal outcomes after oocyte donation and in-vitro fertilization. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;29(3):126–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/gco.0000000000000356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van der Hoorn ML, Lashley EE, Bianchi DW, Claas FH, Schonkeren CM, Scherjon SA. Clinical and immunologic aspects of egg donation pregnancies: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(6):704–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sagi-Dain L, Sagi S, Dirnfeld M. Effect of paternal age on reproductive outcomes in oocyte donation model: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(4):857-65.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Blazquez A, García D, Vassena R, Figueras F, Rodriguez A. Risk of pre-eclampsia after fresh or frozen embryo transfer in patients undergoing oocyte donation. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;227:27–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.05.030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Pecks U, Maass N, Neulen J. Oocyte donation: a risk factor for pregnancy-induced hypertension: a meta-analysis and case series. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011;108(3):23–31. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2011.0023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jeve YB, Potdar N, Opoku A, Khare M. Donor oocyte conception and pregnancy complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 2016;123(9):1471–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13910.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Blazquez A, Garcia D, Rodriguez 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-016-0701-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Storgaard M, Loft A, Bergh C, Wennerholm UB, Soderstrom-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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14257.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Adams DH, Clark RA, Davies MJ, de LS. A meta-analysis of neonatal health outcomes from oocyte donation. J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2015:1–16. doi:S2040174415007898 [pii];https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040174415007898 [doi].

  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.09.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Al Shammary M, Shaw A, Bacal V, Menzies-Toman D, Rozon C, Weir A, et al. Risk of lower birth weight and shorter gestation in oocyte donation pregnancies compared with other assisted reproductive technology methods: systematic review. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2019.08.045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Moreno-Sepulveda J, Checa MA. Risk of adverse perinatal outcomes after oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(10):2017–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01552-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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(4):383.e1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2014.03.044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lutjen P, Trounson A, Leeton J, Findlay J, Wood C, Renou P. The establishment and maintenance of pregnancy using in vitro fertilization and embryo donation in a patient with primary ovarian failure. Nature. 1984;307(5947):174–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Ferraretti AP, Nygren K, Andersen AN, de Mouzon J, Kupka M, Calhaz-Jorge C et al. Trends over 15 years in ART in Europe: an analysis of 6 million cycles. Hum Reprod Open. 2017;2017(2):hox012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hox012.

  22. Van Bentem K, Lashley EELO, Van der hoorn MLP. The significance of specialized preconception counselling in oocyte donation pregnancy with prior history of postpartum eclampsia. BMJ Case Reports: accepted for publication. 2020.

  23. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7): e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Berntsen S, Larsen EC, la Cour FN, Pinborg A. Pregnancy outcomes following oocyte donation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rolnik DL, Wright D, Poon LC, O’Gorman N, Syngelaki A, de Paco MC, et al. Aspirin versus placebo in pregnancies at high risk for preterm preeclampsia. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(7):613–22. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1704559.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Weckstein LN, Jacobson A, Galen D, Hampton K, Hammel J. Low-dose aspirin for oocyte donation recipients with a thin endometrium: prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril. 1997;68(5):927–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Oocyte or embryo donation to women of advanced reproductive age: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(5):e3-e7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.002.

  28. Kamath MS, Mascarenhas M, Kirubakaran R, Bhattacharya S. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;8:Cd003416. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003416.pub5.

  29. Boria F, de la Calle M, Cuerva M, Sainz A, Bartha JL. Impact of oocyte donation on obstetric and perinatal complications in twin pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018:1–91. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2018.1533944.

  30. Guilbaud L, Santulli P, Studer E, Gayet V, Goffinet F, Le Ray C. Impact of oocyte donation on perinatal outcome in twin pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(4):948-53.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.01.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Webber L, Davies M, Anderson R, Bartlett J, Braat D, Cartwright B, et al. ESHRE guideline: management of women with premature ovarian insufficiency. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(5):926–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew027.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Geisler M, Meaney S, O’Donoghue K, Waterstone J. Oocyte donation pregnancies- non-disclosure of oocyte recipient status to obstetric care providers and perinatal outcomes. Ir Med J. 2017;110(10):654.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Mukhopadhaya N, Arulkumaran S. Reproductive outcomes after in-vitro fertilization. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007;19(2):113–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0b013e32807fb199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bodri D, Guillén JJ, Polo A, Trullenque M, Esteve C, Coll O. Complications related to ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval in 4052 oocyte donor cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(2):237–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60200-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Bennett SJ, Waterstone JJ, Cheng WC, Parsons J. Complications of transvaginal ultrasound-directed follicle aspiration: a review of 2670 consecutive procedures. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1993;10(1):72–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01204444.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Dicker D, Ashkenazi J, Feldberg D, Levy T, Dekel A, Ben-Rafael Z. Severe abdominal complications after transvaginal ultrasonographically guided retrieval of oocytes for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 1993;59(6):1313–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)55997-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Roest J, Mous HV, Zeilmaker GH, Verhoeff A. The incidence of major clinical complications in a Dutch transport IVF programme. Hum Reprod Update. 1996;2(4):345–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/2.4.345.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bustillo M, Buster JE, Cohen SW, Thorneycroft IH, Simon JA, Boyers SP, et al. Nonsurgical ovum transfer as a treatment in infertile women. Preliminary experience Jama. 1984;251(9):1171–3.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Antinori S, Versaci C, Gholami GH, Panci C, Caffa B. Oocyte donation in menopausal women. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(9):1487–90. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138284.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Klein J, Sauer MV. Oocyte donation. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2002;16(3):277–91. https://doi.org/10.1053/beog.2002.0288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pados G, Camus M, Van Steirteghem A, Bonduelle M, Devroey P. The evolution and outcome of pregnancies from oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(3):538–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138541.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Sauer MV. Reproduction at an advanced maternal age and maternal health. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(5):1136–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. du Fosse NA, van der Hoorn MP, van Lith JMM, le Cessie S, Lashley E. Advanced paternal age is associated with an increased risk of spontaneous miscarriage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmaa010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Oldereid NB, Wennerholm UB, Pinborg A, Loft A, Laivuori H, Petzold M, et al. The effect of paternal factors on perinatal and paediatric outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24(3):320–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmy005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Dviri M, Madjunkova S, Koziarz A, Madjunkov M, Mashiach J, Nekolaichuk E, et al. Is there an association between paternal age and aneuploidy? Evidence from young donor oocyte-derived embryos: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmaa052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Singh B, Reschke L, Segars J, Baker VL. Frozen-thawed embryo transfer: the potential importance of the corpus luteum in preventing obstetrical complications. Fertil Steril. 2020;113(2):252–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.12.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Groenewoud ER, Cohlen BJ, Macklon NS. Programming the endometrium for deferred transfer of cryopreserved embryos: hormone replacement versus modified natural cycles. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(5):768–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.135.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. 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):330-42.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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;24(1):35–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.08.035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors want to thank librarian J.W. Schoones (Walaeus Library, Leiden University Medical Center) for help with the literature search.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands

    Marie-Louise van der Hoorn, Kim van Bentem & Eileen Lashley

Authors
  1. Marie-Louise van der Hoorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kim van Bentem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eileen Lashley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.L. van der Hoorn came up with the idea for the article. M.L. van der Hoorn and K. van Bentem performed the literature search, data analysis, and drafted the work. All authors critically revised the work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kim van Bentem.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 27 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van der Hoorn, ML., van Bentem, K. & Lashley, E. Evidence-Based Pre-Pregnancy Counseling for Oocyte Donation Pregnancies: a Systematic Review and Guide for Physicians. Reprod. Sci. 29, 3311–3320 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00821-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43032-021-00821-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation