Risk Assessment Of In-Vitro Fertilization, Review Article
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53555/jaz.v44iS7.2999Keywords:
IVF, ART, risks, laboratory errors, risk factors.Abstract
Since its remarkable inception in 1978, IVF has garnered significant public interest. Currently, assisted reproductive technology is widely accessible in most developed countries, and the methods employed have significantly evolved since its inception. Advancements in laboratory technology and clinical practice have enabled IVF to develop into a medical process that is highly efficient, safe, easily accessible, and comparatively affordable. Over 2 million children conceived by IVF have been born so far, and it is probable that ongoing improvements will increase its attractiveness and suitability. There has been a rising interest in the topic of risk assessment in IVF in recent years, with a significant amount of research focused on detecting and reducing the potential dangers linked to the operation. This review article seeks to offer a thorough and all-encompassing analysis of the present understanding of risk assessments in IVF, encompassing the diverse range of risks and complications linked to the operation.
Downloads
References
Graham ME, Jelin A, Hoon AH Jr, Wilms Floet AM, Levey E, Graham EM. Assisted reproductive technology: Short- and long-term outcomes. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2023;65(1):38-49. doi:10.1111/dmcn.15332
Namavar Jahromi B MD, Parsanezhad ME MD, Shomali Z MD, et al. Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome: A Narrative Review of Its Pathophysiology, Risk Factors, Prevention, Classification, and Management. Iran J Med Sci. 2018;43(3):248-260.
Kathpalia SK, Kapoor K, Sharma A. Complications in pregnancies after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Med J Armed Forces India. 2016;72(3):211-214. doi:10.1016/j.mjafi.2015.11.010
Medical Advisory Secretariat. In vitro fertilization and multiple pregnancies: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2006;6(18):1-63.
In vitro fertilization (IVF) - Mayo Clinic. Published September 1, 2023. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/in-vitro-fertilization/about/pac-20384716
Xu T, de Figueiredo Veiga A, Hammer KC, Paschalidis IC, Mahalingaiah S. Informative predictors of pregnancy after first IVF cycle using eIVF practice highway electronic health records. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):839. Published 2022 Jan 17. doi:10.1038/s41598-022-04814-x
Eskew AM, Jungheim ES. A History of Developments to Improve in vitro Fertilization. Mo Med. 2017;114(3):156-159.
Zhao Y, Brezina P, Hsu CC, Garcia J, Brinsden PR, Wallach E. In vitro fertilization: four decades of reflections and promises. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2011 Sep;1810(9):843-52.
Alias AB, Huang HY, Yao DJ. A Review on Microfluidics: An Aid to Assisted Reproductive Technology. Molecules. 2021;26(14):4354. Published 2021 Jul 19. doi:10.3390/molecules26144354
Choe J, Archer JS, Shanks AL. In vitro fertilization. 2020.
Jain M, Singh M. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) techniques. In: StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
Carson SA, Kallen AN. Diagnosis and Management of Infertility: A Review. JAMA. 2021;326(1):65-76. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4788
Thornhill AR, Snow K. Molecular diagnostics in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Mol Diagn. 2002;4(1):11-29. doi:10.1016/S1525-1578(10)60676-9
Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Tsioulou P, et al. Risks in Surrogacy Considering the Embryo: From the Preimplantation to the Gestational and Neonatal Period. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018:6287507. Published 2018 Jul 17. doi:10.1155/2018/6287507
Aimagambetova G, Issanov A, Terzic S, et al. The effect of psychological distress on IVF outcomes: Reality or speculations?. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0242024. Published 2020 Dec 14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0242024
Ni Y, Shen H, Yao H, et al. Differences in Fertility-Related Quality of Life and Emotional Status Among Women Undergoing Different IVF Treatment Cycles. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2023;16:1873-1882. Published 2023 May 22. doi:10.2147/PRBM.S411740
Ofkw_admin. The Psychological Impact of IVF - One Fertility Kitchener Waterloo. One Fertility Kitchener Waterloo. Published October 12, 2023. https://www.onefertilitykitchenerwaterloo.com/the-emotional-side-of-ivf-emotional-challenges-and-triumphs/
Madeira JL, Lindheim MD SR, Trolice MP. IVF errors-is this only the tip of the iceberg? Fertility and Sterility Dialog. 2020.
Nesbit C, Porter MB, Esfandiari N. Catastrophic human error in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(1):e267-74.
Hawkins R. Managing the pre-and post-analytical phases of the total testing process. Ann Lab Med. 2012;32(1):5–16.
Yoe C. Principles of risk analysis: decision making under uncertainty. CRC press, New York; 2019.
Morini D, Daolio J, Nicoli A, De Feo G, Valli B, Melli B, et al. A customized tool of incident reporting for the detection of nonconformances at a single IVF center: development, application, and efficacy. Todorov P, editor. BioMed Res Int. 2021;1126270.
Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority. Adverse incidents in fertility clinics: lessons to learn. 2014.
Flin R. Improving decision making in the clinic and laboratory. the importance of non-technical skills. In Oxforsd Univ Press Great Clarendon st, Oxford ox2 6DP, England; 2014:83–83.
Balaban B, Sakkas D, Gardner DK. Laboratory procedures for human in vitro fertilization. Thieme Medical Publishers; 2014:272–282.
de Ziegler D, Gambone JC, Meldrum DR, Chapron C. Risk and safety management in infertility and assisted reproductive technology (ART): from the doctor’s office to the ART procedure. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(6):1509–17.
Mortimer ST, Mortimer D. Quality and risk management in the IVF laboratory. Cambridge University Press; 2015.
Kennedy C, Mortimer D. Risk management in IVF. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;21(4):691–712.
Wang A. Y., Dill S. K., Bowman M., Sullivan E. A. Gestational surrogacy in Australia 2004-2011: treatment, pregnancy and birth outcomes. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2016;56(3):255–259. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12451.
Sills E. S. An evidence-based policy for the provision of subsidised fertility treatment in California: Integration of array... 2017. (September 2013).
Reignier A., Lammers J., Barriere P., Freour T. Can time-lapse parameters predict embryo ploidy? A systematic review. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2018;36(4):380–387.
doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.01.001.
Kelley R. L., Gardner D. K. In vitro culture of individual mouse preimplantation embryos: the role of embryo density, microwells, oxygen, timing and conditioned media. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2017;34(5):441–454. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.02.001.
Kapfhamer J., Van Voorhis B. Gestational surrogacy: a call for safer practice. Fertility and Sterility. 2016;106(2):270–271. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.028.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Maya Moutaz Albezreh, Aminah Mohamedhafiz Mohmedfouad, Shda Fahad Khalil, Ali Eid A Alharbi, Ghadah Abdullah Aljateli, Eman Hasan Alaradi, Abdullah Saad Almunyif, Ayman Omur Alotaibi, Zina Abdulkareem Alzahidy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
