To think we don’t know the long term impacts of ivf

[Redteapot67]

I read shocking research (albeit in the daily fail) today that ivf children are x6 more likely to have hypertension, which of course puts them at risk of cardiovascular disease.
It’s a stark reminder the first ivf baby is only 40 years old - we have no idea about the long term impacts on a baby of being born this way which I find frightening.
Please - I just want to discuss this if you are going to be upset by the debate look at another thread.
My personal take is that despite the possible unknown health risks if ivf were my only route to having a baby I would have it.

Leaping in to say children behaviour difficulties including autism possibly linked to ivf

So some think

There is potentially a natural selection argument to this.
I know some posters are talking about Icsi where lots of sperm are placed near the egg. But this still cannot be comparable to the perilous journey a sperm must make through the hostile vagina and cervix to reach the egg.
I believe there probably are effects from ivf that we don’t know about.

However this has to be balanced with the fact there will be effects from many of the interventions that happen during conception, pregnancy and childbirth. For example from an evolutionary perspective, it would probably be best not to help women struggling in childbirth, and certainly not to offer c sections. Who knows how all of these assisted deliveries and sections will impact on human evolution. likewise if rates of ivf increased dramatically, this may also have an effect on evolution.

Babies born by c section are known to have higher rates of obesity and asthma in childhood. Any interference with natural processes will always have effects that were not intended.
But really, given the alternative of not intervening I know what my preference is.
having seen the joy of friends who have had babies via ivf and Having had friends who’s only chance of survival for them and their offspring was intervention in childbirth, I think I’d rather stick with the possible lesser consequences of intervention than letting Mother Nature decide who lives, who dies and who gets to procreate.

@Redteapot67- valid point. No way the industry would fund a study.

which suggests to me that they are indeed suggesting a correlation rather than a causation,

That's not how I read it at all. By excluding known risk factors, this study is suggesting that assisted reproduction techniques in themselves may be a risk factor for hypertension. One of the authors is quoted in the same article as saying 'There is growing evidence that ART alters the blood vessels in children, but the long-term consequences were not known.'

I can't read the editorial in full at the moment, but I think there is a suggestion that ART may have an epigenetic effect.

@LittleBookofCalm do you want to actually share any decent research on that?
What’s the point of throwing that in?

Let’s just humour you that you did actually share a link to good research that IVF children were over represented in autism diagnoses.

Here are some totally made up vaguely valid sounding reasons why:

• IVF parents are so glad they finally got a child, that they spoil them, which leads to poor behaviour which they then want to blame on a medical condition instead of permissive parenting

• IVF parents are more engaged with the health system due to conception method and so are more likely to push for medical diagnosis for their child

• IVF parents are generally wealthier (it costs £££!) which means they’re probably more educated which is how they earned more. Because they’re more educated they’re more likely to have the knowledge and confidence to negotiate a system where it is hard to push for diagnosis for your child

• IVF parents are older (time lost to trying) and it’s actually the age of the eggs that is the issue not the method of conception

This is why we need decent research, including robust statistical analysis. Not people on forums (and the DM ) throwing in random comments / headlines.

"They found that IVF-conceived children have lower birth weights and higher fat under the skin, higher blood pressure and higher fasting glucose concentrations than naturally conceived children; however, growth, development and cognitive function are similar between groups. A very low risk of disorders of genetic control was observed in assisted-conception children. Overall, there did not appear to be a direct link between assisted reproduction treatment and children’s health. The researchers concluded that the cause of some differences in the health of children conceived using assisted reproduction treatment may be due to the age of the woman receiving treatment. Large-scale, research studies are needed to study the long-term health of children conceived using assisted reproduction treatment."
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1472648313005397

@Bluetrews25 this could also be because IVF mothers are also likely to be much older, and women who get pregnant later in life have a higher risk of breastcancer. So double that with IVF and you're going to have some pretty high percentages.

@Ellisandra Ultrasounds are actually being researched now as a possible cause. Specifically frequent early scans and during key development stages, and those given to obese women as the machines have to be turned up in strength or something and they are offered many more than healthy bmi women.

Love the idea of ultrasounds being turned up in strength,must complain at work as non of our do although we can change the depth if field.
I had ivf and my body didn't know it was supposed to go into early menopause(now 58 and still peri).
I had questionnaires until DD was 3 but nothing since.,only if they carried on following if children would we have any chance of picking up trends but you'd also have to account for family lifestyle etc.
As for the blood pressure issue this happens to many people,usually older than the max of 40 years to account for ivf but much of this is to do with obesity lifestyle choices.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384197/

Link for neurodevelopmental concerns and ISCI

If early scans are implicated then it would be worrying not least due to the increased use of Dopplers at home

In terms of “higher strength” them I think what is being referred to is the internal scans done at a very early stage for IVF patients and I believe that does subject to tissues to higher strength waves

After 10yrs ttc and 4 failed ivf and I forever greatful that the 5th worked

Dd is now 17mths and she is my world and I would die to protect her and kill if anyone hurt her

So if it comes that in the future she gets health problem then we will deal with it

I’m just grateful she’s in my life and made me a mummy

We had icsi and the embryo dd came from got frozen and defrosted

Ivf is truely a miracle

@HermioneGoesBackHome

Itsear there are more issues with ICSI because it’s used when the sperm quality isn’t good.

Not necessarily. If you want any genetic testing then ICSI is used because the embryo is tidier and easier to remove the cells needed for testing.

Mum of 2 ICSI kids.

Alpha your taking through your arse. I’d like to see the studying your referring to.

There is no turning up just the depth range. I’ve preformed pregnancy scans. I’ve also preformed pregnancy scans on obese ladies and you DO NOT have to ‘turn’ it up then either.

The only slight risk is if you hold the probe in one specific place for say 20/30 mins, which just doesn’t happen. Internal or external and that’s in very early stage pregnancy. It can cause bubbling on the skin of the fetus - but like I said there were never be a situation where you would hold it in place for that length of time.

Some of the accusations on here are just embarrassing.

IVF - low birth weight ? Nah - mine were 10lb & 8lb

Worked with kids with autism and special needs for over ten years, many turned in to good friends. None of my friends with autistic kids had IVF. What can we blame that on??

Utter ignorance on this thread is actually offensive

Given that very few women/ couples have ivf just because they can, it would be very difficult to show that the ivf procedure itself caused or didn't cause anything.

There are some increased risks with IVF but then lots of us have increased risks. If you have a history of hypertension or cancer in your family your children have an increased risk.

I think most of the sn issue has found to be related to multiples which is why those with a high chance of multiples now have only one embryo transferred.
My ivf son has autism but he has 2 non ivf cousins with autism so I would think it is likely to be a genetic factor.

Actually, many millions of sperm are placed around the egg and they fight it out for success.

@manorgreyhound, I find this misunderstanding really telling. As the previous poster you were correcting was saying, it's actually the egg that seems to 'choose' the sperm, so far as we understand. A lot of teaching still implies it's the nice, manly, aggressive sperm that 'competes' for the passive, feminine egg.

But it isn't actually like that!

I do wonder how much attitudes to IVF are rooted in a desire to believe it does/doesn't 'mimic' natural sexual roles?

I dunno how that relates to the OP's question, but it really struck me reading this thread.

I agree, interesting topic.
But so many variables that affect health and so many reasons children from IVF could have more health reasons as mentions countless times before me here.

It's not going to stop people doing it.

I know a few IVF children who are under 5, but otherwise very healthy.

The mother is older and has health problems of her own so should the children have health problems down the line it would be hard to put the blame on IVF other than the fact that the mothers health issues mean that should she not have used IVF they wouldn't be here and therefore wouldn't have health problems.

I myself had fertility issues and was prepared to use IVF (or anything for that matter) to have a child.

It would have outweighed any small risk.

I conceived naturally in the end, miracle in itself.

I also know of of of the first IVF babies.

I remember as a child how it was seen as a big taboo and lots of negative discussion on him and feeling sorry for the future illnesses he will no doubt have.

He's nearly 40 and as far as I can tell, seems to live a normal healthy life, just with much older parents than you would typically expect.

hypertension is:

a) very common anyway

b) often genetic

c) treatable with a range of medicines

It runs in my family. We all tend to live to a ripe old age, mainly through looking after ourselves and leading a healthy lifestyle.

As a parent of teenage twins via ICSI, this kind of study is interesting, but so little is known about the genetic/environmental causes of hypertension in adulthood anyway, that it's hard to draw any firm conclusions.

Many other potential factors (aside from the IVF/ICSI process itself) have been listed above. I vaguely recall studies of babies with a lower birthweight have slightly raised blood pressure in adolescence. Given that IVF is more likely to result in a multiple birth, and lower birthweights compared with singleton deliveries, this is yet another possibility.

There is nothing in this study which would make me panic for the future health of my kids.

Spring machine wasn't the first ivf baby a girl? Louise?

Think she meant one of the first ivf. Not the first aka Louise

She has two children naturally and I don’t think any ill health problem s

Ooh that's good to know. She's almost exactly my age and it was big news (obviously). I almost feel like we're friends.
(just realised how stalker y I sound)