Skip to main content
Download PDF

Pregnancy outcomes of monochorionic diamniotic and dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology and conceived naturally: a study based on chorionic comparison

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume 24, Article number: 337 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate monochorionic diamniotic (MCDA) and dichorionic diamniotic (DCDA) twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology (ART) and conceived naturally.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the data on twin pregnancies conceived by ART from January 2015 to January 2022,and compared pregnancy outcomes of MCDA and DCDA twins conceived by ART with those of MCDA and DCDA twins conceived naturally, pregnancy outcomes between MCDA and DCDA twins conceived by ART, and pregnancy outcomes of DCT and TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies with those of DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally.

Result

MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART accounted for 4.21% of the total pregnancies conceived by ART and 43.81% of the total MCDA pregnancies. DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART accounted for 95.79% of the total pregnancies conceived by ART and 93.26% of the total DCDA pregnancies. Women with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART had a higher premature delivery rate, lower neonatal weights, a higher placenta previa rate, and a lower twin survival rate than those with MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally (all p < 0.05). Women with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally had lower rates of preterm birth, higher neonatal weights, and higher twin survival rates than women with DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART and those with DCT and TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies (all p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Our study confirms that the pregnancy outcomes of MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART are worse than those of MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally. Similarly, the pregnancy outcomes of naturally-conceived DCDA pregnancies are better than those of DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART and DCT and TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) has evolved into a well-established and advanced approach for addressing infertility.Over the past few decades, the incidence of multiple pregnancies has also gradually increased due to the use of ART [1,2,3]. Controlling the number of embryo transfer (ET) has reduced the incidence of multiple pregnancies to some extent [4, 5]. In China, the transfer of no more than two cleavage embryos and one blastocyst is recommended [6], however, multiple pregnancies remain inevitable. Our previous study showed that MCDA pregnancies accounted for 2.55% of all clinical pregnancies [7], while the DCT pregnancy rate accounted for 1.24% of all clinical pregnancies [8].

Twin pregnancies can be classified into MCDA, DCDA, and monochorionic monoamniotic (MCMA) pregnancies based on chorionic properties, among which MCDA pregnancies are defined as those in which twins share a common placenta, causing special materno-fetal complications, such as twin-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS), twin anemia polycythemia sequence (TAPS), and selective intrauterine growth restriction (sIUGR). Due to infertile couples’ desires for twins [9], DCT and TCT triplet pregnancies are often reduced to DCDA twins by multifetal pregnancy reduction (MFPR) [10], so the incidence of monozygotic twin pregnancies conceived by ART is significantly higher than that of monozygotic twin pregnancies conceived naturally [11,12,13,14,15]. Evidence studies have shown that compared with naturally conceived pregnancies, multiple pregnancies conceived by ART are associated with an increased risk of obstetric complications, such as miscarriage [6, 11], preterm birth [16,17,18,19,20,21,22], perinatal mortality [22,23,24], low birth weight [17,18,19,20], and birth defects [17,18,19,20, 25, 26]. However, there are also inconsistent views on pregnancy outcomes regarding pregnancies conceived naturally and those conceived by ART. Some studies have shown that twin pregnancies conceived by ART have worse pregnancy outcomes than those conceived naturally [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. However, in other studies, no difference in pregnancy outcomes was found between twin pregnancies conceived by ART and those conceived naturally [27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34]. Even one study showed that twin pregnancies conceived by ART had better pregnancy outcomes than those conceived naturally [35]. In addition, due to the low incidence of MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally and few reductions of DCT and TCT pregnancies to DCDA pregnancies, there are few studies comparing its extensive use with MCDA and DCDA conceived by ART and naturally conceived twins, and there are also inconsistent views. Given the above uncertain views, the aim of this study was to compare pregnancy outcomes of MCDA and DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART with those of MCDA and DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally, and to compare pregnancy outcomes of DCT and TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies with those of DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally.

Materials and methods

We assessed data on twin pregnancies conceived by ART from January 2015 to January 2022 at the Reproductive Medicine Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, and data on women with twin pregnancies who gave birth in the obstetrics department of the hospital. We excluded pregnant women with irregular obstetric examinations and incomplete data. The timing of termination of pregnancy was based on fetal and maternal conditions and was carried out in accordance with Chinese obstetric twin pregnancy guidelines. The termination of pregnancy was also carried out in accordance with the condition of the mother and the fetus, as well as the wishes of the couple. A total of 1951 women with DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART, 251 women with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally, 92 women with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART, 118 women with MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally, 125 women with TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies, and 16 women with DCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies were included in this study. We compared pregnancy outcomes of MCDA and DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART with those of MCDA and DCDA pregnancies conceived by naturally, the outcomes between MCDA and DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART, and the outcomes of DCT and TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies with those of DCDA conceived naturally.

The cleavage embryos in the ART group were added 17 days to the day of ET, and blastocysts (added 19 days) to calculate the gestational age of birth, and to give an estimate of the last menstrual period (LMP).The numbers of cleavage embryos in the ART group at Day 17 and blastocysts (the number of blastocysts at Day 19) were added to calculate the gestational age at birth, giving an estimate of the LMP. The gestational age of twins conceived naturally was estimated by the date of the LMP, and if necessary, the gestational age of the embryo at the first trimester ultrasound. MCDA and DCDA pregnancies were diagnosed by transvaginal ultrasound, based on the “T-sign” or “lambda sign”, and chronicity was rechecked after delivery, using placental pathology if necessary. DCT and TCT reduction procedures were performed 6–8 weeks after ET and performed by experienced doctors at our Reproductive Medicine Center, using transvaginal ultrasound guidance to puncture and collect selected embryos without medication.

Due to the scarcity of twin pregnancies, we did not subdivide twin pregnancies conceived by ART into frozen embryos and fresh embryos to reanalyze the data. We considered the following variables: maternal age; gestational age; full-term delivery, premature delivery (subdivided into early preterm birth at 28–34 + 0 weeks and late preterm birth at 34–37 + 0 weeks); neonatal weight (subdivided into a low birth weight < 2500 g, very low birth weight < 1500 g, and fetal weight difference of > 25%); mode of delivery (subdivided into vaginal delivery and cesarean section); infant sex including male and female; Materno-fetal complications including gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes mellitus, intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes, placenta previa, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), neonatal deformities, TTTS, and sIUGR; and the proportion of surviving fetuses (subdivided into singleton survival; twin survival; one live-born twin, one stillborn twin; and stillborn twins).

Definitions used in the manuscript

Singleton survival means that one of the twins experienced spontaneous reduction before 20 weeks. One live-born and one stillborn twin means that one of the twins died in utero after 28 weeks of pregnancy. Stillborn twins means the both twins died in utero after 28 weeks of gestation. Full-term delivery refers to delivery after 37 weeks of pregnancy. Premature delivery indicates birth at less than 37 weeks gestation. The secondary sex ratio (SSR), defined as the proportion of live-born males out of all live births.

Statistical analysis

Data conforming to the normal distribution are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Categorical data were tested using chi-square or Fisher exact tests. The two-tailed t test was used for independent sample continuous variables. Data corresponding to the analysis were analyzed using the SPSS 24.0 software package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University.

Results

Pregnancy and maternal-infant outcomes of MCDA and DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally and by ART

A total of 1951 women with DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART and 251 with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally were analyzed, and as shown in Table 1, the maternal age in the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally was significantly lower than that in group with DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART (27.68 ± 3.15 years versus 29.53 ± 3.71 years, p < 0.001). The group with DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART was more likely to deliver prematurely than the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally (48.2% versus 24.3%, p < 0.001), but there was no difference in the premature delivery rate between the subgroups (28–34 + 0 weeks, 34–37 + 0 weeks). In addition, the neonatal weight of the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally was significantly higher than that of the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART (3015.38 ± 681.42 g versus 2612.53 ± 523.61 g, p < 0.001). In terms of materno-fetal complications, the singleton survival rate of the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART was significantly higher than that of group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally (14.92% versus 1.20%, p < 0.001), while the twin survival rate of the group with DCDA conceived naturally was higher (98.80% versus 84.47%, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding other maternal complications, except for rate of placenta previa (0.40% versus 2.97%, p < 0.001). In addition, there was no difference in the SSR of DCDA twins between ART and naturally conceived (p = 0.207).

Table 1 Pregnancy and maternal-infant outcomes of DCDA by ART and conceived naturally
Full size table

Table 2 shows that for the pregnancy and maternal-infant outcomes of MCDA pregnancies, we included 118 women with MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally and 92 women with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART. The two groups showed that the maternal age in the naturally conceived group was younger than that in the ART group (25.01 ± 2.08 years versus 29.47 ± 4.10 years, p < 0.001). The neonatal weight in the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally was significantly higher than that in the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART (2832.12 ± 624.51 g versus 2566.37 ± 507.27 g, p < 0.001), and the proportion of infants with a weight < 2500 g was significantly higher in the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART (40.59% versus 17.18%, p < 0.001). The twin survival rate in the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally was also significantly higher than that in the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART (92.37% versus 81.52%, p = 0.018). The rate of singleton survival in the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART was higher than that in the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally (15.22% versus 6.78%, p = 0.048), suggesting that women with MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally were less likely to experience spontaneous reduction before 20 weeks. Similarly, the incidence of placenta previa was increased in the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART (8.70% versus 0.85%, p = 0.011).

Table 2 Pregnancy and maternal-infant outcomes of MCDA by ART and conceived naturally
Full size table

Pregnancy and maternal-infant outcomes of MCDA and DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART

As shown in Table 3, The rate of premature delivery in the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART was significantly higher than that in the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART (60.87% versus 48.23%, p = 0.018), especially between 34 and 37 + 0 weeks (50% versus 36.90%, p = 0.011). In terms of maternal-infant complications, we observed slightly worse pregnancy outcomes in the MCDA group, such as a higher incidence of placenta previa in the MCDA group than in the DCDA group (8.70% versus 2.97%, p = 0.008) and a higher rate of stillbirth of one of the twins (6.26% versus 0, p < 0.001).

Table 3 Pregnancy and maternal-infant outcomes of MCDA and DCDA by ART
Full size table

Pregnancy and maternal-infant outcomes of DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally and DCT and TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA.

Based on our previous studies, TCT and DCT triplets reduction to singleton pregnancy.had the best pregnancy outcomes [6].However, there are also pregnant patients who wish to retain twin pregnancies, and for DCT pregnancies, we reduced one of the MCDA twins.

From Table 4, we can see that pregnant women in the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally were younger than those in the group with TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies (27.68 ± 3.148 years versus 29.54 ± 3.458 years, p < 0.001). In terms of pregnancy outcomes, premature delivery rates were higher in the group with TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies than in the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally and were highest in the premature delivery subgroup (28–34 + 0 weeks, 34–37 + 0 weeks) (p = 0.002, p = 0.003, respectively). Similarly, the neonatal weight of the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally was significantly higher than that in the group with TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies (3015.38 ± 681.42 g versus 2567.66 ± 571.38 g, p < 0.001), and the proportion of lower neonatal weight (< 2500 g, < 1500 g, respectively) in the group with TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies was also higher (39.15% versus 7.21%, p < 0.001; 4.68% versus 0.80%, p = 0.001). Pregnancy outcomes after TCT pregnancy reduction were also improved, with no difference in the probability of maternal complications for women with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally (all P > 0.05). However, the twin survival rate was higher in the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally (98.80% versus 86.40%, p < 0.001), and the singleton survival rate was increased in the group with TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies (11.20% versus 1.20%, p < 0.001), which indicated that the probability of spontaneous reduction after TCT reduction was also higher.

Table 4 Pregnancy and maternal-infant outcomes of DCDA conceived naturally and TCT reduced to DCDA
Full size table

The results of the comparison between the groups with DCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies and naturally conceived pregnancies are shown in Table 5. The maternal age in the group with DCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies was significantly higher (29.88 ± 4.288 years versus 27.68 ± 3.148 years, p = 0.009). The neonatal weight in the group with DCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies was lower than that in the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally (2734.09 ± 615.55 g versus 3015.38 ± 681.42 g, p < 0.001), and the proportion of neonates with a weight < 2500 g was higher than that in the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally (40.91% versus 7.21%, p < 0.001).However, singleton survival accounted for a higher proportion than DCDA twin survival in the naturally conceived group (62.50% versus 3.19%, p < 0.001), which also suggests an increased incidence of spontaneous reduction following MFPR.

Table 5 Pregnancy and maternal-infant outcomes of DCDA conceived naturally and DCT reduced to DCDA
Full size table

Discussion

As we all know, the risk of multiple pregnancies is significantly higher than that of singleton pregnancies. In twin pregnancies, DCDA twin pregnancies were associated with significantly better outcomes than MCDA twin pregnancies.Previous reports have shown that twin pregnancies account for approximately 1.5% of all naturally conceived pregnancies but only 15–30% of pregnancies conceived by ART [31, 33, 34]. According to the CSRM guidelines, several fetal reduction committees of the Chinese Society of Reproductive Studies [36], physicians should recommend that couples reduce the number of fetuses they have and preserve singleton pregnancies as much as possible.However, through this investigation, it was found that MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART accounted for 4.21% of the total twin pregnancies conceived by ART and 43.81% of the total MCDA pregnancies, and DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART accounted for 95.79% of the total twin pregnancies conceived by ART and 93.26% of the total DCDA pregnancies. There are many factors that can be involved in multiple pregnancies, among which the age of the mother plays a crucial role. Previous studies have noted that women who are older are more likely to have monozygotic twins [37, 38]. Similarly, we also found that the maternal age of women who conceived twins by ART was generally higher than that of women who conceived twins naturally.As we are a single-center study, the number of cases of MCDA twin is limited.In this study, we recruited fewer MCDA twins conceived by ART than naturally conceived MCDA twins because some MCDA twins were reduced to single fetuses, and some had spontaneous abortions in the first trimester.

We know that twins themselves have many complications compared to singletons, especially the MCDA twins.Through this study, we confirmed that the pregnancy outcomes of MCDA pregnancies are worse than those of DCDA pregnancies, regardless of the mode of conception. In addition, The study showed that maternal complications of twin pregnancies conceived by ART were comparable to those of twin pregnancies conceived naturally, except that the incidence of placenta previa was higher in the ART group than in the group with natural conception. The association mechanism of ART in increasing the incidence of placenta previa remains uncertain [39,40,41], even after controlling for maternal age [42], the number of embryos [40, 43], and subfertility factors [44, 45]. However, it has been suggested that it may be related to altered endometrial blood flow, placental abnormalities [46]. In addition, it has been suggested that the mechanism of low placental implantation during ET and the induction of uterine contractions after ET caused by the cervical catheter is considered to be the mechanism of low placental implantation [45]. Another study also reported that factors related to the ART procedure itself, including the composition of the medium, the duration of embryo culture, the procedure in which the embryos are frozen and thawed, the potential for polyspermic fertilization, delays in oocyte fertilization, changes in the hormonal environment at the time of ET, the manipulation of gametes and embryos, or a combination of these factors, may increase the risk of placenta previa [47, 48].

In addition, this survey shows that the rate of premature delivery of DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART and TCT reduction was higher than that of DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally, and the materno-fetal outcome is also worse. This result is as expected, and as our previous research reported, which shown that the rate of miscarriage and preterm birth increased after TCT pregnancy reduction [6].Again, as we expected, the rate of premature delivery was higher for both MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally and by ART than for DCDA pregnancies, which is basically consistent with previous research [49, 50]. However, the results suggest that there is no difference in the rate of premature delivery between DCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies and naturally conceived pregnancies, but higher spontaneous reduction in the DCT reduction group.This may be related to a small number of cases, but it can at least suggest that DCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies have worse maternal-infant outcomes than DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally. In additon, the neonatal weight of the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally was higher than that of the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART and TCT and DCT pregnancies with reduction, the neonatal weight of the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally was higher than that of the group with MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART, and the incidence of neonates with a weight < 2500 g was higher in the group conceived by ART, which is consistent with the findings of Trojner Bregar A et al. [51]. There was no significant difference in neonatal weight between the groups with MCDA and DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART, but from the perspective of neonatal weight in these two groups, the neonatal weight of both groups was still low. The proportion of neonates with a weight < 1500 g was only higher in the group with TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies than in the group with DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally, and there was almost no difference in the other groups. This shows that MFPR has an impact in the pregnancy as have seen several papers.

Spontaneous reduction is also a common complication of ART and multiple pregnancy [52]. The rate of spontaneous reduction in DCDA pregnancies conceived by in vitro fertilization (IVF) has previously been reported to be between 5 and 50% [53,54,55,56]. Some studies have noted that spontaneous reduction easily increases the chance of miscarriage, premature birth, and low birth weight for the remaining fetus [6, 57, 58]. The same problem was found in our study.Some studies noted that spontaneous reduction after ART may be influenced by factors such as embryo quality, maternal age, injury, infection, inflammation, and hormonal changes [51, 57,58,59,60,61].

It is reassuring to note that in the current state, our ART procedures do not affect the sex ratio law in the naturally conceived state. This is different from previous reports, and studies have pointed out that ART has a certain impact on the sex ratio [62,63,64].Several studies on the sex ratio of the Chinese population have shown that the sex ratio of the population has gradually become normal in recent years [65, 66].but we would like to continue to study the clinical data of our newborns in future work to exclude one-sided conclusions due to the insufficient amount of data in this study.

In our study, the mother-infant outcomes of twins conceived by assisted reproduction were similar to those of spontaneously conceived twins, which were largely similar to the results of several previous studies, except for the incidence of placenta previa described above [28, 33, 35, 67]. However, studies have shown that the rate of maternal complications are higher in twin pregnancies conceived by ART than in those conceived naturally [68,69,70], and the rate of neonatal defects increases significantly in twin pregnancies conceived by ART [71, 72].The stillbirth rate differs significantly between MCDA and DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART, which is well known that the perinatal outcome of MCDA twins depends primarily on the presence or absence of specific complications, such as TTTS.

Finally, this study has certain limitations. Because our hospital is a tertiary hospital, patients before 12 weeks of pregnancy generally visit our community hospital for prenatal examination and registration because the examination methods and diagnostic ability of community hospitals may have certain deficiencies; for the diagnosis of ambiguous chorionic diseases, we may need pathological assistance to clarify diagnoses after delivery. We also did not assess spontaneous fetal miscarriage in the first trimester of pregnancy. However, we analyzed the type of fetal survival. In this regard, the results can also be reflected from this point of view. Based on previous research, DCT pregnancies in our center are mostly reduced to DCDA pregnancies, resulting in less data, and we hope to combine multicenter data for comprehensive analysis in the future.Due to the retrospective analysis, some patients have vague recollection of assisted reproductive technology (IVF or ICSI), so we did not make perfect statistics for this part of the data, and the analysis of SSR may not be comprehensive enough. However, our study is also somewhat advantageous, as we have an almost comprehensive analysis of pregnancy outcomes for several types of twin pregnancies, Such as, comparing pregnancy outcomes of DCT and TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies with those of DCDA pregnancies conceived naturally, which is in addition to the very little literature available.

Conclusions

It is well established that DCDA twin pregnancies have better outcomes than MCDA twin pregnancies.In this study, We confirm that pregnancy outcomes of MCDA pregnancies conceived by ART are worse than those of MCDA pregnancies conceived naturally.Similarly, the pregnancy outcomes of naturally-conceived DCDA pregnancies are better than those of DCDA pregnancies conceived by ART and DCT and TCT pregnancies reduced to DCDA pregnancies. However, the causes and mechanisms of this aspect are not specifically described. Through this conclusion, we will continue to study the questions raised in the article.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are also available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

MCDA:

monochorionic-diamniotic

DCDA:

dichorionic-diamniotic

ART:

assisted reproductive technology

DCT:

dichorionic triamniotic triplet pregnancy

TCT:

trichorionic triamniotic triplet pregnancy

TTTS:

twin-twin transfusion syndrome

TAPS:

twin anemia polycythemia sequence

sIUGR:

selective intrauterine growth restriction

MFPR:

multifetal pregnancy reduction

LMP:

the last menstrual period; ET: embryo transfer

PPH:

postpartum hemorrhage

IVF:

in vitro fertilization

SD:

mean ± standard deviation

References

  1. Valenzuela-Alcaraz B, Cruz-Lemini M, Rodríguez-López M, Goncé A, García-Otero L, Ayuso H, et al. Fetal cardiac remodeling in twin pregnancy conceived by assisted reproductive technology. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):94–100.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Roest J, van Heusden AM, Verhoeff A, Mous HV, Zeilmaker GH. A triplet pregnancy after in vitro fertilization is a procedure-related complication that should be prevented by replacement of two embryos only. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(2):290–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Multifetal gestations: Twin, Triplet, and higher-Order Multifetal pregnancies: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 231. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137:e145–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kupka MS, Ferraretti AP, de Mouzon J, Erb K, D’Hooghe T, Castilla JA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2010: results generated from European registers by ESHRE†. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(10):2099–113.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. van de Mheen L, Everwijn SM, Haak MC, Manten GT, Zondervan HA, Knapen MF, et al. Outcome of multifetal pregnancy reduction in women with a dichorionic triamniotic triplet pregnancy to a singleton pregnancy:a retrospective nationwide cohort study. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2016;40(2):94–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu S, Li G, Wang C, Zhou P, Wei Z, Song B. Pregnancy and obstetric outcomes of dichorionic and trichorionic triamniotic triplet pregnancy with multifetal pregnancy reduction: a retrospective analysis study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022;22(1):280.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Song B, Wei ZL, Xu XF, Wang X, He XJ, Wu H, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of monochorionic diamniotic twinning after assisted reproduction: a six-year experience base on a large cohort of pregnancies. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(11):e0186813.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Liu S, Xu Q, Wang Y, Song B, Wei Z. Pregnancy incidence and associated risk factors of dichorionic triamniotic triplet under assisted reproduction: a large sample of clinical data analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023;14:1049239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Black M, Bhattacharya S. Epidemiology of multiple pregnancy and the effect of assisted conception. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;15(6):306–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kanhai HH, van Rijssel EJ, Meerman RJ, Bennebroek Gravenhorst J. Selective termination in quintuplet pregnancy during first trimester. Lancet. 1986;1(8495):1447.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Couck I, Van Nylen L, Deprest J, Lewi L. Monochorionic twins after in-vitro fertilization: do they have poorer outcomes? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020;56(6):831–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Derom C, Leroy F, Vlietinck R, Fryns JP, Derom R. High frequency of iatrogenic monozygotic twins with administration of clomiphene citrate and a change in chorionicity. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):755–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Blickstein I, Verhoeven HC, Keith LG. Zygotic splitting after assisted reproduction.N Engl. J Med. 1999;340(9):738–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Alikani M, Cekleniak NA, Walters E, Cohen J. Monozygotic twinning following assisted conception: an analysis of 81 consecutive cases. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(9):1937–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mateizel I, Santos-Ribeiro S, Done E, Van Landuyt L, Van de Velde H, Tournaye H, et al. Do ARTs affect the incidence of monozygotic twinning? Hum Reprod. 2016;31(11):2435–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Ohlsson A, Beyene J, Murphy KE, et al. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization twins: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;148(2):105–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Weghofer A, Klein K, Stammler-Safar M, Barad DH, Worda C, Husslein P, et al. Severity of prematurity risk in spontaneous and in vitro fertilization twins: does conception mode serve as a risk factor? Fertil Steril. 2009;92(6):2116–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dera A, Breborowicz GH, Keith L. Twin pregnancy-physiology, complications and the mode of delivery. Arch Perinat Med. 2007;13:7–16.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ombelet W, De Sutter P, Van der Elst J, Martens G. Multiple gestation and infertility treatment: registration, reflection and reaction-the Belgian project. Hum Reprod Update. 2005;11:3–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Caserta D, Bordi G, Stegagno M, Filippini F, Podagrosi M, Roselli D, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in spontaneous versus assisted conception twin pregnancies. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;174:64–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pourali L, Ayati S, Jelodar S, Zarifian A, Sheikh Andalibi MS. Obstetrics and perinatal outcomes of dichorionic twin pregnancy following ART compared with spontaneous pregnancy. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2016;14(5):317–22.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Moini A, Shiva M, Arabipoor A, Hosseini R, Chehrazi M, Sadeghi M. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes of twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology compared with twin pregnancies conceived spontaneously: a prospective follow-up study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165:29–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Duy Anh N, Thu Ha NT, Khac Toan N, Tuan Dat D, Huyen Thuong PT, Tra Giang DT, et al. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes of Dichorionic-Diamniotic Twin pregnancies conceived by IVF/ICSI compared with those conceived spontaneously. Clin Ter. 2022;173(2):155–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Daniel Y, Ochshorn Y, Fait G, Geva E, Bar-Am A, Lessing JB. Analysis of 104 twin pregnancies conceived with assisted reproductive technologies and 193 spontaneously conceived twin pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(4):683–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bonduelle M, Wennerholm UB, Loft A, Tarlatzis BC, Peters C, Henriet S, et al. A multi-centre cohort study of the physical health of 5-year-old children conceived after intracytoplasmic sperm injection, in vitro fertilization and natural conception. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(2):413–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hansen M, Bower C, Milne E, de Klerk N, Kurinczuk JJ. Assisted reproductive technologies and the risk of birth defects-a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(2):328–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Andrijasevic S, Dotlic J, Aksam S, Micic J, Terzic M. Impact of conception method on twin pregnancy course and outcome. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2014;74(10):933–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Ghalili A, McLennan A, Pedersen L, Kesby G, Hyett J. Outcomes of monochorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies: a comparison of assisted and spontaneous conceptions.Aust N. Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53:437–42.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Vasario E, Borgarello V, Bossotti C, Libanori E, Biolcati M, Arduino S, et al. IVF twins have similar obstetric and neonatal outcome as spontaneously conceived twins: a prospective follow-up study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;21(3):422–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gleicher N, Barad D. Twin pregnancy, contrary to consensus, is a desirable outcome in infertility. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2426–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Koudstaal J, Bruinse HW, Helmerhorst FM, Vermeiden JP, Willemsen WN, Visser GH. Obstetric outcome of twin pregnancies after in-vitro fertilization: a matched control study in four Dutch university hospitals. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(4):935–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Szymusik I, Kosinska-Kaczynska K, Bomba-Opon D, Wielgos M. IVF versus spontaneous twin pregnancies–which are at higher risk of complications? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(12):2725–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kozinszky Z, Zádori J, Orvos H, Katona M, Pál A, Kovács L. Obstetric and neonatal risk of pregnancies after assisted reproductive technology: a matched control study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82(9):850–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dhont M, De Sutter P, Ruyssinck G, Martens G, Bekaert A. Perinatal outcome of pregnancies after assisted reproduction: a case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(3):688–95.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fitzsimmons BP, Bebbington MW, Fluker MR. Perinatal and neonatal outcomes in multiple gestations: assisted reproduction versus spontaneous conception. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(5):1162–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hu L, Huang G, Sun H, Fan L, Feng Y, Shen H, et al. CSRM guideline for multifetal pregnancy reduction (2016). J Reprod Med. 2017;26:193–8.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Sobek A, Prochazka M, Klaskova E, Lubusky M, Pilka R. High incidence of monozygotic twinning in infertility treatment. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub. 2016;160(3):358–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Knopman J, Krey LC, Lee J, Fino ME, Novetsky AP, Noyes N. Monozygotic twinning: an eight-year experience at a large IVF center. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):502–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Carusi DA, Gopal D, Cabral HJ, Bormann CL, Racowsky C, Stern JE. A unique placenta previa risk factor profile for pregnancies conceived with assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2022;118(5):894–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Karami M, Jenabi E, Fereidooni B. The association of placenta previa and assisted reproductive techniques: a meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(14):1940–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jenabi E, Salimi Z, Bashirian S, Khazaei S, Ayubi E. The risk factors associated with placenta previa: an. Umbrella Rev Placenta. 2022;117:21–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jansen CHJR, Kleinrouweler CE, van Leeuwen L, Ruiter L, Mol BW, Pajkrt E. Which second trimester placenta previa remains a placenta previa in the third trimester: a prospective cohort study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;254:119–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Korb D, Schmitz T, Seco A, Le Ray C, Santulli P, Goffinet F, et al. Increased risk of severe maternal morbidity in women with twin pregnancies resulting from oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:1922–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Woo I, Hindoyan R, Landay M, Ho J, Ingles SA, McGinnis LK, et al. Perinatal outcomes after natural conception versus in vitro fertilization (IVF) in gestational surrogates: a model to evaluate IVF treatment versus maternal effects. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:993–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Romundstad LB, Romundstad PR, Sunde A, von During V, Skjaerven R, Vatten LJ. Increased risk of placenta previa in pregnancies following IVF/ICSI; a comparison of ART and non-ART pregnancies in the same mother. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2353–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Jansen CHJR, Kastelein AW, Kleinrouweler CE, Van Leeuwen E, De Jong KH, Pajkrt E, et al. Development of placental abnormalities in location and anatomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99:983–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Bower C, Webb S. The risk of major birth defects after intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in vitro fertilization.N Engl. J Med. 2002;346(10):725–30.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Tavaniotou A, Albano C, Smitz J, Devroey P. Impact of ovarian stimulation on corpus luteum function and embryonic implantation. J Reprod Immunol. 2002;55:123–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Eran W, Elad B, Ohad F, Ann D, Letizia S, Jacob B, et al. Placental histopathology diferences and neonatal outcome in Dichorionic-Diamniotic as compared to Monochorionic-Diamniotic twin pregnancies. Reprod Sci. 2018;25(7):1067–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Bhide A, Sankaran S, Sairam S, Papageorghiou AT, Thilaganathan B. Relationship of intertwin crown–rump length discrepancy to chorionicity, fetal demise and birth weight discordance. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;34:131–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Trojner Bregar A, Blickstein I, Verdenik I, Lucovnik M, Tul N. Outcome of monochorionic-biamniotic twins conceived by assisted reproduction: a population-based study. J Perinat Med. 2016;44(8):881–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Oloyede OA, Iketubosin F, Bamgbopa K. Spontaneous fetal reduction and early pregnancy complications in multiple pregnancies following in vitro fertilization. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012;119(1):57–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhang YL, Wang XY, Wang F, Su YC, Sun YP. Clinical analysis of spontaneous pregnancy reduction in the patients with multiple pregnancies undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015;8(3):4575–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Steinkampf MP, Whitten SJ, Hammond KR. Effect of spontaneous pregnancy reduction on obstetric outcome. J Reprod Med. 2005;50(8):603–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Morlando M, Ferrara L, D’Antonio F, Lawin-O’Brien A, Sankaran S, Pasupathy D, et al. Dichorionic triplet pregnancies: risk of miscarriage and severe preterm delivery with fetal reduction versus expectant management. Outcomes Cohort Study Syst Rev BJOG. 2015;122(8):1053–60.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Tummers P, De Sutter P, Dhont M. Risk of spontaneous abortion in singleton and twin pregnancies after. IVF/ICSI Hum Reprod. 2003;18(8):1720–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Chasen ST, Luo G, Perni SC, Kalish RB. Are in vitro fertilization pregnancies with early spontaneous reduction high risk? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(3):814–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Pinborg A, Lidegaard O, la Cour Freiesleben N, Andersen AN. Consequences of vanishing twins in IVF/ICSI pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:2821–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, Ventura SJ, Menacker F, Munson ML. Births: final data for 2002. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2003;52(10):1–113.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. van de Mheen L, Everwijn Sheila MP, Knapen Maarten FCM, Dick O, Melanie E, Manten Gwendolyn TR, et al. The efectiveness of multifetal pregnancy reduction in trichorionic triplet gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(5):e5361–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Abbas A, Johnson M, Bersinger N, Nicolaides K. Maternal alpha-fetoprotein levels in multiple pregnancies.BJOG 1994;101:156–8.

  62. Luke B, Brown MB, Grainger DA, et al. The sex ratio of singleton offspring in assisted-conception pregnancies. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1579–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Maalouf WE, Mincheva MN, Campbell BK, Hardy IC. Effects of assisted reproductive technologies on human sex ratio at birth. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(5):1321–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Dean JH, Chapman MG, Sullivan EA. The effect on human sex ratio at birth by assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures-an assessment of babies born following single embryo transfers, Australia and New Zealand, 2002–2006. BJOG. 2010;117(13):1628–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Jiang Q, Zhang C. Recent sex ratio at birth in China. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(5):e005438.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Fan SL, Xiao CN, Zhang YK, Li YL, Wang XL, Wang L. How does the two-child policy affect the sex ratio at birth in China? A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):789. Published 2020 May 27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Bernasko J, Lynch L, Lapinski R, Berkowitz RL. Twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive techniques:maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:368–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Jie Z, Yiling D, Ling Y. Association of assisted reproductive technology with adverse pregnancy outcomes. Iran J Reprod Med. 2015;13(3):169–80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Tallo CP, Vohr B, Oh W, Rubin LP, Seifer DB, Haning RV Jr. Maternal and neonatal morbidity associated with in vitro fertilization. J Pediatr. 1995;127:794–800.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Helmerhorst FM, Perquin DA, Donker D, Keirse MJ. Perinatal outcome of singletons and twins after assisted conception: a systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2004;328:261.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Chen M, Heilbronn LK. The health outcomes of human offspring conceived by assisted reproductive technologies (ART). J Dev Orig Health Dis. 2017;8(4):388–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Giorgione V, Parazzini F, Fesslova V, Cipriani S, Candiani M, Inversetti A, et al. Congenital heart defects in IVF/ICSI pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018;51(1):33–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the patients who agreed to participate in this study.

Funding

Scientific Research Project of Anhui Province (2022AH050674).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hefei Maternal and Child Health Hospital, Hefei, 230001, China

    Shuhua Liu, Jingyu Qian, Dehong Liu, Bin Zhang, Xianxia Chen & Mingming Zheng

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Anhui Women and Children’s Medical Center,, Hefei, 230001, China

    Shuhua Liu, Jingyu Qian, Dehong Liu, Bin Zhang, Xianxia Chen & Mingming Zheng

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternal and Child Medical Center of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230001, China

    Shuhua Liu, Jingyu Qian, Dehong Liu, Bin Zhang, Xianxia Chen & Mingming Zheng

  4. Reproductive Medicine Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230000, China

    Shuhua Liu & Qianhua Xu

Authors
  1. Shuhua Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qianhua Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jingyu Qian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dehong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bin Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xianxia Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mingming Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SL, QX collected and analyzed the data. SL DL, JQ and BZ contributed to the writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript. XC and MZ contributed to administrative, technical, or material support. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Shuhua Liu, Xianxia Chen or Mingming Zheng.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Ethical Review Board of Hefei Maternal and Child Health Hospital (YYLL2022-01-02-01) and was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki principles. Written informed consents were obtained from all enrolled patients after an explanation of the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, S., Xu, Q., Qian, J. et al. Pregnancy outcomes of monochorionic diamniotic and dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancies conceived by assisted reproductive technology and conceived naturally: a study based on chorionic comparison. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 24, 337 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06521-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06521-z

Keywords

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

Contact us