Are IVF babies always high risk?

[Anonymous]

IVF babies have a higher risk of stillbirth, even after controlling for other factors, so weekly monitoring is recommended around 36 weeks.

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2021/06/indications-for-outpatient-antenatal-fetal-surveillance#:~:text=For%20pregnancies%20achieved%20using%20in,0%2F7%20weeks%20of%20gestation.

Not sure about the other stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

What? Your friend had ivf with no infertility issues? Wtf?

PP here and I was also surprised. But they were very upfront about it. They knew we had fertility issues so when they told us they were doing IVF, we assumed, but they explained they had this perk through work (it wasn't via insurance -- her company just covered IVF treatment for up to two kids and you didn't need to "qualify" with an established history of infertility). They wanted maximum control over the pregnancies and doing IVF meant they could select the "best" embryo before implantation and maximize the timing based on her fertility window. I don't know, I thought it was weird, but they are fairly normal UMC people otherwise. Though my friend is super type A generally so this is in keeping with her super-controlled, planner personality.

Before that I also did not know that people did IVF without fertility issues.

Your friend is kind of dumb and ignorant. You can 100% control when you get pregnant by just knowing your cycle and only trying the months you want. As for embryo quality, the body does this naturally. That’s why miscarriages are so common. So, so weird to subject your body to hormones that can cause cancer for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

This is completely insane.

Yes agreed like most posts here. Why someone would go through IVF voluntarily and without any fertility issues is nuts. There’s so much time and effort and injections and hormones involved. Sounds like a super control freak to me! I wonder how many embryos are on ice for them. I imagine they have several if they have no issue with egg and sperm count and quality etc. definitely unethical. Good thing they aren’t in Alabama!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

This is completely insane.

Yes agreed like most posts here. Why someone would go through IVF voluntarily and without any fertility issues is nuts. There’s so much time and effort and injections and hormones involved. Sounds like a super control freak to me! I wonder how many embryos are on ice for them. I imagine they have several if they have no issue with egg and sperm count and quality etc. definitely unethical. Good thing they aren’t in Alabama!

Well it also stretches the limits of plausibility that you would go through all of this, rather than just have sex with your husband.

I think they probably have an issue like ED and for obvious reasons did not want to say the real story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

What? Your friend had ivf with no infertility issues? Wtf?

PP here and I was also surprised. But they were very upfront about it. They knew we had fertility issues so when they told us they were doing IVF, we assumed, but they explained they had this perk through work (it wasn't via insurance -- her company just covered IVF treatment for up to two kids and you didn't need to "qualify" with an established history of infertility). They wanted maximum control over the pregnancies and doing IVF meant they could select the "best" embryo before implantation and maximize the timing based on her fertility window. I don't know, I thought it was weird, but they are fairly normal UMC people otherwise. Though my friend is super type A generally so this is in keeping with her super-controlled, planner personality.


Your body gives you the best egg through normal ovulation, and gets rid of all lower quality eggs through a process called atresia, so when you do IVF you are messing with the very process that would ensure the best egg. When you do a retrieval, you are retrieving all of the many eggs your body would have naturally discarded through atresia, and hoping one or more of them turn out OK to create an embryo, transfer, and implant. You can still get a decent egg but it's very very likely one that the body would have discarded and destroyed (you could also be retrieving and creating an embryo with the actual egg you would have naturally ovulated - the "best" egg - but that's a smaller likelihood with IVF and there's no way to tell). There are many reasons to do IVF but getting the best egg is actually what does not happen with IVF.

And to anyone who thinks PGT can tell you the best egg, that's not how it works. PGT can tell you, based on sampling a few cells, if there's a correct number of chromosomes and can screen for a few major genetic disorders. The genes that control for the crazy illnesses people get years down the line, intelligence, athleticism, mental health, beauty - all of that cannot be screened (not yet anyway).

Before that I also did not know that people did IVF without fertility issues.

[Anonymous]

IVF pregnancy in my 40s
Regular timing of gestational diabetes test
Daily baby aspirin
Delivery at 39 weeks
NT at 12, quick scan 15, anatomy 20 weeks
Fetal echo at 20 (but family cardiac hx)

I am seen exclusively by MFMs. Love it so much more than regular OBs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.

1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan

1. Had early gd testing at 12 weeks because of prior gd, not bc of ivf
2. Yes
3. Induced at 39 weeks due to ama (40)- my dr said no higher risk of still birth for ivf but due to age
4. Yes
5. No 16 week scan but had growth scans at 24, 38, 32, 36 weeks

[Anonymous]

Yes, pretty much always.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.

1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan

1. Yes - but likely due to age not IVF (maybe only in my 2nd pregnancy - can't recall about the first.)
2. yes - but again typically recommended for many reasons (age, obesity, etc.) - not sure about IVF alone - REI recommended discontinuing at 11 weeks - but because pregnancy was high risk in other ways continued throughout.
3. n/a (for other reasons had a planned c-section at 37 weeks.)
4. yes (strongly recommended by MFM b/c of IVF but I think benefit is being questioned in recent literature) .
5. NT testing at 12 weeks, NO 16 week scan, Yes to 20 weeks anatomy scan (which I think is done for everyone regardless of IVF)

The only other thing recommended to me because of use of ICSI during IVF was testing for sex aneuploidies with the NIPT test. Apparently there is an increased risk of those with ICSI (and one of my embryos was actually XYY.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.

1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan

I did not have an IVF pregnancy and still had to follow this protocol because I was 35. I was allowed to go to exactly 40 weeks before induction but for the same reason. I went into labor naturally two days before my due date and so was able to avoid. Ask for a membrane sweep to help naturally speed things up if you get close to your induction cutoff.

[Anonymous]

IVF pregnancy age 32/33. Unexplained infertility. I had a fetal echo and weekly NSTs starting at 36 weeks. I was induced 40+3. Doctor was fine with me going to 40 weeks but didn’t want me going super far after my due date and I was fine with that. The fetal echo was just my OB being cautious I think. In fact the doctor who did the fetal echo said that new data shows IVF pregnancies aren’t at higher risk for heart defects, but some docs still like to make sure. I think the weekly NSTs in the last few weeks were also an IVF thing.

There’s some loose data saying that IVF pregnancies do poorly past 40 weeks. However, all of us doing IVF already have something going on, so it’s unclear if the IVF is causing placental degradation or if it’s whatever else we have going on. I’ve also heard some doctors just base it on age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can depend on why you did IVF. My first response to your thread title was "no" because I have a close friend who conceived both of her kids via IVF simply because her work covered it and it allowed her to perfectly time her pregnancies. She was under 35, and had no indication of infertility. They only implanted one embryo both times, and both "took."

Her pregnancies were both lower risk than my naturally conceived pregnancy at 37. Of your list, I had to do all but #2 (I actually had to do 3 anatomy scans because of a potential problem detected on the 20 week scan).

This is completely insane.

Yes agreed like most posts here. Why someone would go through IVF voluntarily and without any fertility issues is nuts. There’s so much time and effort and injections and hormones involved. Sounds like a super control freak to me! I wonder how many embryos are on ice for them. I imagine they have several if they have no issue with egg and sperm count and quality etc. definitely unethical. Good thing they aren’t in Alabama!

Well it also stretches the limits of plausibility that you would go through all of this, rather than just have sex with your husband.

I think they probably have an issue like ED and for obvious reasons did not want to say the real story.

There’s a decent amount of people (thousands - rare but not unheard of) who use IVF for family balancing/gender selection. There’s a few groups on social media about it. A good chunk of people in them actually travel to different countries to do the procedure since their home countries ban gender selection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those that delivered a baby conceived with IVF did your Dr do any of the following? I'm trying to see how much of this is evidence based and protocol.

1. Early GD testing at 12 weeks, again at 16 and 24 weeks
2. Low dose aspirin 81mg to reduce preeclampsia risk
3. Induction at 37-39 weeks to reduce increased still birth rates going to 40+
4. Echo fetal cardiogram between 20-24 weeks
5. 16 and 20 week anatomy scan

I had some risks, but they didn't have anything to do with IVF per se.
1. No
2. No
3. Induced for both pregnancies on my due date (gave birth at 41 and 43)
4. Yes
5. Yes
I had higher risk of cervical insufficiency because of LEEP procedures so had ultrasounds every 2 weeks to monitor my cervix and every time they checked out the baby as well. I had weekly ultrasounds my last 5 weeks or so. So yes, I had 25+ fetal ultrasounds with each pregnancy. I had no complications...never had a short cervix; both pregnancies were full term and uneventful except all the ultrasounds. I was happy to get so many looks at the baby.