Link between IVF pregnancy and difficult birth?

[WhoUpsetTheEquilibrium]

I’ve never said this out loud because I always felt like it was a bit insulting to those with babies made with the help of IVF. However in my experience, every person I know who has had an IVF baby has endured a difficult birth some ending in EMCS.
I was talking to my friend who is a SCBU nurse and she said she thought the same, in her experience IVF babies don’t tend to have smooth births.

Of course, we are just two people in a world of millions of people here to the thank of IVF and we know absolutely nothing about them and we could be totally wrong!

I just wondered what people here thought, and their experience with themselves or people they know who had IVF treatment.

I know a few people with IVF babies and they have had ok births including natural twin births with no complications. Might be something in it but not my tiny anecdotal experience.

IVF babies are much more likely to be twins, which is a more medicalised birth - and twins are far more likely to be premature and so end up on SCBU/NICU. A proportion of women going through IVF will , like me, have had lots of previous abdominal surgery and therefore scarring.

So I was a higher risk pregnancy because of the scarring (due to endo - the reason I needed IVF) and because I was expecting twins (as a result of IVF). I was also 6 years older than if Id got pregnant easily. As a result my babies were born early, I had a section (because breech twins a considered risky) and we spent a few days in scbu.

But none of that was due to the ivf procedure jtself, if that makes sense

Twins via IVF or natural are more likely to need intervention.

It wasn’t twins I was referring to.

Well I suppose many of the reasons women might require IVF might also be linked to higher risk of birth complications. And if it's multiples then they are always higher risk.

I would need IVF and a planned C section if I were to have children due to pre-existing medical conditions.

Maybe mums who have iVF are, on average, older than those who don’t. This can increase the risk of interventions.

I had IVF/ICSI for both my children due to male factor infertility.
Labour #1: 35 weeks, 4 hour Labour.
Labour #2 : 40 weeks, 45 minute labour.

IVF is more likely to be induced labour. They fear as your body needed help getting pregnant that it might not go into labour naturally.

I ended up with 2 pessarys and give birth in one push with a massive what the heck just happened there. I was in the room on my own, MW heard me and burst in the door in time to catch LO.

I’d say that ivf women are more likely to be older mums, which is in itself a risk factor to be considered. That plus the extra attention which Mum and midwife/Gynae team give to both Mum and baby (maybe there’s extra anxiety too, given the lengths gone to get pregnant). Also, the exact date of conception is known, no guess work.
So all in all, there could be some increased risk of needing to be induced, and every intervention increases the risk of needing a medicalised birth.
My own experience: iui baby 1: 42 weeks, induced, emcs. IVF baby 2: planned cs at 40 weeks.

My IVF baby arrived after a failed induction and then a c section planned with 24 hours notice, the section went very smoothly as did the recovery. I work in an IVF clinic and have lots of friends with IVF babies and there's a real mix of births so I don't really see a pattern, I do however often think those having had IVF are sometimes more forth coming about sharing their birth experiences as they have often shared their fertility journey with people already

I agree ^^

I am open about my elective c section and don’t consider it a failure the way some women of my acquaintance do - my DC’s conception and birth was medicalised from start to finish and I have no problem with that. In my case the fertility problems did relate to the likely birth problems. I was also only concerned with a live baby rather than a good birth possibly because of what I’d gone through to get there, so I didn’t resist the idea of c section.

I had an ivf baby. It was recommended to me that we had an induction as some hospitals believe that the placenta is more likely to pack up at the end of an ivf pregnancy.

Saying that, I’ve spoken to a lot of consultants since then who think that’s a load of rubbish.

2 IVF babies, both straightforward, second one at home. Would have liked to have the first one at home, but being IVF you're not so likely to take any chances I think. No one raised any concerns about the births being likely to be more complex.

I agree with scipio, after 9 years, 5 ivfs, 3 laparoscopies, 3 egg donors and 2 miscarriages they could of cut me open with a rusty butter knife with no pain relief and I would of been happy! I know people who feel really down about having a section or a failed induction. We went in on the Monday first thing and I wasn't dilating after 3 days of pessaries so we had a section booked the Thursday and it was cancelled after me waiting 6am-8pm gowned up nil by mouth so was booked again for the Friday and they managed to fit us in about 2pm, to me everything went smoothly but my view of my week in hospital is probably through rose tinted glasses as I couldn't believe I was finally a mum. Huge congrats to all those who have their miracles, it's the best feeling ever

I have never heard or read that before. I think you will find there is no correlation. There is a correlation with still births and IVF, but if you factor in the women's age it dissappears. Mine were both IVF and both births were natural, no painkillers and went very well. Tiny tear at the first birth. So YABU and a bit judgey.

Chittycat that may well be the reason in my area I was told they wouldn't let me go beyond my due date.

I think consultants may privately doubt that theory but regardless they do not want to take the slightest risk of something going wrong at the end of an IVF pregnancy or the risk for the finger to be pointed at them.

I was induced with my IVF twins but that because they hadn't arrived by 40+ weeks & it was a bank holiday weekend so the hospital was extra keen to have them born. 4 hour labour/ natural birth with no further intervention / pain relief, both twins were fine. I was fairly 'old' at 37 too.

Some hospitals automatically treat ivf pregnancies as high risk so that will make inductions and elective sections more likely. Having lost my first 'low risk' ivf baby ( due to placental problems not being spotted) I'd be happy with that.

On my area an ivf pregnancy automatically means high risk and consultant led. My first pregnancy was a natural conception and went perfectly and he was born at 40+1 at a healthy weight.
My IVF. pregnancy was a nightmare from start to finish with a high risk of anomaly, weekly scans, weeks spent in hospital due to heavy bleeding, premature labour which was halted at 28 weeks. I was eventually told I would have to have a section at 36 weeks as the bleeding just wouldn’t stop coming. Baby was born tiny and struggled to feed so lost more weight. He’s fine now though but I’d never go through another IVF pregnancy.

IVF pregnancy here, natural birth with some nice painkilling drugs, 11 hrs from start to finish, no intervention apart from not being allowed a water birth because dds heart beat kept dropping (she had the cord wrapped round her body).

Yep, because this is what people who have to have IVF need, someone who hasn't had it, speculating on Mumsnet as to whether or not even IF they can manage to get pregnant that anecdotally someone thinks that they might have a shit birth too.

Unless you are an IVF researcher or considering having it yourself, why are you asking?

And if you're considering having it yourself, please don't ask questions like this on forums. You'll end up driving yourself round the IVFbend. Ask your doctor.

And yeah, you're right, it is a bit insulting to both those who have had or are considering IVF. As if the treatment isn't intrusive enough...

We have two IVF miracles.

My wife was early 30s so not old.

Our first stopped growing at 34 weeks and so they induced at 37 weeks. They said the placenta was too small and that's why he wasn't growing any more.
The induction did nothing and ended up with an emergency section and a week in special care after he was born not breathing.

Second was a planned section due to the first birth not going to plan.

I think a lot of ivf pregnancies are induced and I also think a lot of inductions fail and so end in emergency csections.

A lot of the pregnancies probably don't need to be induced and if they were left to their own devices would go smoothly without drama.

The specialists we saw all seem paranoid that the pregnancy will fail on the last 3 weeks and as horrible as it sounds are mostly worried it will affect their ivf success rate.

I do know other people who had perfectly natural ivf births though.

2 ivf babies. One fresh, one FET.

Both vaginal deliveries, one 39+2 the other 41+1. not induced, gas and air only and on a MLU.

I'm very glad my hospitals weren't aware of your anecdata so I was allowed to get on with it without intervention.

I think it's an interesting thread, even if it is anecdotal. DD was IUI, not IVF, but both DP and I have wondered if the medications contributed to DP's difficult pregnancy. It is anecdata, but they put you on a lot of progesterone to thicken the womb lining, and I'd be interested to know whether that has any other effects.