SERIOUS birth problems are twice as likely to affect IVF babies than those conceived naturally, research shows.
The study, which compared the outcomes of hundreds of thousands of births, looked at the risk of stillbirth, low birth weight, premature birth and infant death.
Both traditional IVF, involving fertilisation in a glass dish, and the injection of sperm directly into eggs increased the chances of complications, the researchers found.
Scientists from Adelaide University, Australia, studied 17 years of data from more than 300,000 births in South Australia, of which 4300 were the result of assisted reproduction.
Study leader Professor Michael Davies said: "Compared with spontaneous conceptions in couples with no record of infertility, singleton babies from assisted conception were almost twice as likely to be stillborn, more than twice as likely to be pre-term, almost three times as likely to have very low birth weight, and twice as likely to die within the first 28 days of birth."
The study also looked at birth outcomes for women who found it hard to get pregnant but never received intensive fertility treatment. Their chances of experiencing complications were much higher than average.
But a British fertility expert stressed many of the problems may be related to patients' infertility rather than IVF treatment.
Sheena Lewis, of Queen's University, Belfast, said: "We have known for some time that couples conceiving spontaneously after a period of infertility have poorer outcomes. This indicates these problems may come from the disease rather than the fertility treatment.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article