Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Methods
- Pinborg A.
- Hougaard C.O.
- Nyboe Andersen A.
- Molbo D.
- Schmidt L.

Statistical analysis
Results
Variable | Body mass index (kg/m2) | P-value, | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
<18.5 | 18.5–24.9 | 25.0–29.9 | ⩾30.0 | ||
Women | 20 (4.1) | 305 (62.6) | 103 (21.1) | 59 (12.1) | – |
Bodyweight (kg) | 50.5 ± 3.7 | 62.7 ± 6.4 | 77.4 ± 6.5 | 94.3 ± 13.3 | – |
BMI (kg/m2) | 17.9 ± 0.4 | 21.9 ± 1.7 | 27.2 ± 1.5 | 33.3 ± 2.9 | – |
Women’s age (years) | 32.0 ± 3.4 | 32.1 ± 3.5 | 31.7 ± 3.7 | 31.4 ± 3.7 | NS (NS) |
Men’s age (years) | 34.9 ± 5.5 | 34.1 ± 5.0 | 34.2 ± 5.0 | 35.2 ± 6.5 | NS (NS) |
Smoker | 10/15 (66.7) | 71/228 (31.1) | 22/76 (28.9) | 12/41 (29.3) | NS (NS) |
Social class | 0.02 (<0.01) | ||||
I + II | 7 (35.0) | 57 (18.7) | 20 (19.4) | 5 (8.5) | – |
III + IV | 9 (45.0) | 183 (60.0) | 59 (57.3) | 38 (64.4) | – |
V + VI | 4 (20.0) | 35 (11.5) | 18 (17.5) | 9 (15.3) | – |
Student | 0 | 30 (9.8) | 4 (3.9) | 5 (8.5) | – |
Total | 20 (100) | 305 (100) | 101 (98.1) | 57(96.6) | – |
Years of infertility | 4.2 ± 2.1 | 3.9 ± 2.0 | 4.1 ± 2.1 | 4.7 ± 2.8 | NS (0.04) |
Ever pregnant prior to inclusion | 5 (25.0) | 101 (33.1) | 29 (28.2) | 14 (23.7) | NS (NS) |
Fertility treatment prior to inclusion | 12 (60.0) | 185 (60.7) | 62 (60.2) | 34 (57.6) | NS (NS) |
Main cause of infertility | <0.01 (<0.01) | ||||
Tubal | 6 (30.0) | 79 (25.9) | 31 (30.1) | 14 (23.7) | – |
Irregular ovulation or anovulation | 1 (5.0) | 9 (3.0) | 0 | 8 (13.6) | – |
Male factor | 8 (40.0) | 117 (38.4) | 39 (37.9) | 16 (27.1) | – |
Unexplained | 5 (25.0) | 58 (19.0) | 18 (17.5) | 6 (10.2) | – |
Other diagnoses | 0 | 14 (4.6) | 3 (2.9) | 5 (8.5) | – |
Mixed factor (female + male) | 0 | 26 (8.5) | 12 (11.7) | 9 (15.3) | – |
Treatment cycles | Body mass index (kg/m2) | P-value | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
<18.5 | 18.5–24.9 | 25.0–29.9 | ⩾30.0 | ||
Treatment cycles (IVF + ICSI + FET) | 51 | 842 | 319 | 205 | NS |
IVF cycles | 30 (58.8) | 455 (54.0) | 160 (50.2) | 116 (56.6) | – |
ICSI cycles | 14 (27.5) | 247 (29.3) | 97 (30.4) | 62 (30.2) | – |
FET cycles | 7 (13.7) | 140 (16.6) | 62 (19.4) | 27 (13.2) | – |
Cancelled cycles | 10 (19.6) | 72 (8.6) | 26 (8.2) | 39 (19.0) | <0.01 |
Treatment cycles per woman (mean ± standard deviation) | |||||
All treatment cycles/woman | 2.6 ± 1.2 | 2.8 ± 1.6 | 3.1 ± 1.8 | 3.5 ± 2.1 | 0.01 |
IVF cycles/woman | 1.5 ± 1.1 | 1.5 ± 1.4 | 1.6 ± 1.4 | 2.0 ± 1.8 | – |
ICSI cycles/woman | 0.7 ± 0.9 | 0.8 ± 1.3 | 0.9 ± 1.4 | 1.1 ± 1.5 | – |
FET cycles/woman | 0.4 ± 0.6 | 0.5 ± 0.8 | 0.6 ± 0.9 | 0.5 ± 0.7 | – |
Cancelled cycles | 0.5 ± 1.0 | 0.2 ± 0.5 | 0.3 ± 0.5 | 0.7 ± 1.4 | <0.01 |
Variable | Body mass index (kg/m2) | P-value, | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
<18.5 | 18.5–24.9 | 25.0–29.9 | ⩾30.0 | ||
Started cycles | 44 | 702 | 257 | 178 | – |
Total dose gonadotrophin (IU, median, range) | 1950 (900–6075) | 2025 (162–7075) | 2250 (300–5800) | 2400 (300–5850) | <0.01 |
Cancelled cycles | 9 (20.5) | 57 (8.1) | 22 (8.6) | 32 (18.0) | <0.01 |
Reason for cancellation | 0.02 | ||||
Poor response to stimulation | 1 (11.1) | 18 (36.7) | 3 (14.3) | 5 (16.1) | – |
No eggs retrieved | 0 (0.0) | 14 (28.6) | 6 (28.6) | 12 (38.7) | – |
No fertilization | 8 (88.9) | 17 (34.7) | 12 (57.1) | 14 (45.2) | – |
Total | 9 | 49 | 21 | 31 | – |
Oocytes collected | 9.6 ± 6.1 | 9.9 ± 5.3 | 9.4 ± 5.1 | 8.3 ± 5.8 | <0.01 |
Embryos | 6.2 ± 5.5 | 6.2 ± 4.0 | 6.0 ± 4.4 | 4.7 ± 3.7 | <0.01 |
Pregnancy outcome | |||||
Positive HCG | 14 (31.8) | 221 (31.5) | 75 (29.2) | 43 (24.2) | <0.01 (NS) |
Biochemical pregnancy | 0 (0.0) | 10 (1.4) | 4 (1.6) | 1 (0.6) | NS |
Ectopic pregnancy | 0 (0.0) | 5 (0.7) | 3 (1.2) | 3 (1.7) | NS |
Ongoing pregnancy | 14 (31.8) | 199 (28.3) | 68 (26.5) | 37 (20.8) | NS (0.04) |
Miscarriage | 1 (2.3) | 24 (3.4) | 8 (3.1) | 9 (5.1) | NS |
Live birth | 9 (20.5) | 151 (21.5) | 45 (17.5) | 27 (15.2) | NS (0.06) |
Lost to follow-up | 4 (9.1) | 31 (4.4) | 15 (5.8) | 3 (1.7) | – |
Variable | Body mass index (kg/m2) | P-value, | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
<18.5 | 18.5–24.9 | 25.0–29.9 | ⩾30.0 | ||
Started cycles | 20 | 305 | 103 | 59 | – |
Total dose gonadotrophin (IU) | 2008 ± 922 | 1987 ± 705 | 2153 ± 748 | 2176 ± 659 | NS |
Cancelled cycles | 2 (10.0) | 29 (9.5) | 12 (11.7) | 10 (17.0) | NS |
Reason for cancellation | NS | ||||
Poor response to stimulation | 0 | 4 | 1 | 2 | – |
No eggs retrieved | 0 | 5 | 4 | 3 | – |
No fertilization | 2 | 15 | 7 | 5 | – |
Missing | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | – |
Total | 2 | 29 | 12 | 10 | – |
Oocytes retrieved | 9.9 ± 6.2 | 10.5 ± 5.5 | 9.6 ± 5.2 | 7.6 ± 4.7 | <0.01 |
Embryos | 6.0 ± 5.2 | 6.5 ± 4.2 | 6.1 ± 4.5 | 4.4 ± 3.5 | 0.01 |
Pregnancy outcome | |||||
Positive HCG | 6 (30.0) | 107 (35.1) | 33 (32.0) | 16 (27.1) | NS (NS) |
Biochemical pregnancy | 0 | 4 (1.3) | 2 (1.9) | 2 (3.4) | – |
Ectopic pregnancy | 0 | 1 (0.3) | 0 | 0 | – |
Ongoing pregnancy | 6 (30.0) | 96 (31.5) | 30 (29.1) | 13 (22.0) | NS (NS) |
Miscarriage | 1 (5.0) | 10 (3.3) | 2 (1.9) | 3 (5.1) | – |
Live birth | 4 (20.0) | 75 (24.6) | 24 (23.3) | 10 (16.9) | NS (NS) |
Lost to follow-up | 1 (5.0) | 17 (5.6) | 5 (4.9) | 1 (1.7) | – |


Variable | All treatment cycles (n = 1334) | P-value | All fresh cycles (n = 1164) | P-value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Female BMI | 0.96 (0.93–1.00) | 0.034 | 0.96 (0.93–0.99) | 0.024 |
Female age | 0.95 (0.90–1.00) | 0.037 | 0.93 (0.89–0.98) | 0.011 |
Male age | 0.96 (0.93–1.00) | 0.040 | 0.97 (0.94–1.01) | NS |
Discussion
Comparison with other studies
de Mouzon, J., Goossens, V., Bhattacharya, S., Castilla, J.A., Ferraretti, A.P., Korsak, V., Kupka, M., Nygren, K.G., Nyboe Andersen, A. and The European IVF-monitoring (EIM) Consortium, for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), 2010. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum. Reprod. 25, 1851–1862.
Acknowledgements
References
- Effect of maternal and paternal age on pregnancy and miscarriage rates after intrauterine insemination.Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2008; 17: 392-397
- Maternal morbid obesity and the risk of adverse pregnancy outcome.Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 103: 219-224
- Weight loss results in significant improvement in pregnancy and ovulation rates in anovulatory obese women.Hum. Reprod. 1995; 10: 2705-2712
- Weight loss in obese infertile women results in improvements in reproductive outcome for all forms of fertility treatment.Hum. Reprod. 1998; 13: 1502-1505
- Paternal age and maternal age are risk factors for miscarriage; results of a multicentre European study.Hum. Reprod. 2002; 17: 1649-1656
de Mouzon, J., Goossens, V., Bhattacharya, S., Castilla, J.A., Ferraretti, A.P., Korsak, V., Kupka, M., Nygren, K.G., Nyboe Andersen, A. and The European IVF-monitoring (EIM) Consortium, for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), 2010. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum. Reprod. 25, 1851–1862.
- Maternal obesity, length of gestation, risk of postdates pregnancy and spontaneous onset of labour at term.Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 115: 720-725
- Obstetric outcomes after in vitro fertilization in obese and morbidly obese women.Obstet. Gynecol. 2006; 108: 61-69
- Sundhed og sygelighed i Danmark and Udviklingen siden 1987.Institute of Public Health, Copenhagen University2006
- Obesity is a risk factor for early pregnancy loss after IVF or ICSI.Acta. Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2000; 79: 43-48
Fedorcsak, P., Dale, P.O., Storeng, R., Ertzeid, G., Bjercke, S., Oldereid, N., Omland, A.K., Åbyholm, T., Tanbo, T., 2004. Impact of underweight and overweight on assisted reproduction treatment. Hum. Reprod. 19, 2523–2528.
- Prioritising for fertility treatments-the effect of excluding women with a high body mass index.Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006; 113: 1218-1221
- Socialgrupper i Danmark [Social classes in Denmark].The Danish National Institute of Social Research, Copenhagen1984
- Overweight and obesity.in: Lopez E.A.D. Rodgers A. Murray C.J.L. Ezzati M. Comparative quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risk Factors. WHO, Geneva2004: 497-596
- Economic consequences of overweight and obesity in infertility: a framework for evaluating the costs and outcomes of fertility care.Hum. Reprod. Update. 2010; 16: 246-254
- Interpreting parameters in the logistic regression model with random effects.Biometrics. 2000; 56: 909-914
- Obesity is associated with increased risk of first trimester and recurrent miscarriage: matched case-control study.Hum. Reprod. 2004; 19: 1644-1646
- Effects of obesity on women’s reproduction and complications during pregnancy.Obes. Rev. 2004; 5: 137-143
- Female obesity adversely affects assisted reproductive technology (ART) pregnancy and live birth rates A SART Writing Group.Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26: 245-252
- Effect of overweight and obesity on assisted reproductive technology – a systematic review.Hum. Reprod. Update. 2007; 13: 433-444
- The direct health services costs of providing assisted reproduction services in overweight or obese women: a retrospective cross-sectional analysis.Hum. Reprod. 2009; 24: 633-639
- Overweight and obesity in infertility: cost and consequences.Hum. Reprod. Update. 2010; 16: 229-230
- Body weight, body mass index, and age: predictors of menotropin dose and cycle outcome in polycystic ovarian syndrome?.Fertil. Steril. 1992; 58: 622-624
- Patient predictors for outcome of gonadotrophin ovulation induction in women with normogonadotrophic anovulatory infertility: a meta-analysis.Hum. Reprod. Update. 2003; 9: 429-449
- Predicting the FSH threshold dose in women with WHO group II anovulatory infertility failing to ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate.Hum. Reprod. 2008; 23: 1424-1430
- Prospective longitudinal cohort study on cumulative 5-year delivery and adoption rates among 1338 couples initiating an ART program (Copenhagen Multicentre Psychosocial Infertility Research Programme (COMPI)).Hum. Reprod. 2009; 24: 991-999
- Evidence that obesity alters the quality of oocytes and embryos.Pathophysiology. 2008; 15: 115-121
- Paternal age and reproduction.Hum. Reprod. Update. 2010; 16: 65-79
Schmidt, L., 2006. Infertiliy and assisted reproduction in Denmark. Epidemiology and psychosocial consequences [Dissertation]. Dan. Med. Bull. 53, 390–417.
Sebire, N.J., Jolly, M., Harris, J.P., Wadsworth, J., Joffe, M., Beard, R.W., Regan, L., Robinson, S., 2001. Maternal obesity and pregnancy outcome: a study of 287,213 pregnancies in London. Int. J. Obes. Relat. Metab. Disord. 25, 1175–1182.
- Body mass and probability of pregnancy during assisted reproduction treatment: retrospective study.Br. Med. J. 2000; 25: 1320-1321
- Does body mass index of infertile women have an impact on IVF procedure and outcome?.J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2000; 17: 547-552
Article info
Publication history
Footnotes
Anja Pinborg is a specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology and associate professor at the Fertility Clinic, Rigshospitalet. She has been working in the field of reproductive medicine for the last 10 years. She defended her doctoral thesis, entitled ‘IVF/ICSI twin pregnancies – risks and prevention’ in 2006. She has published 38 peer-reviewed papers and four book chapters in the field of epidemiology and reproductive medicine. She is currently a university supervisor for four PhD students and a past supervisor for two. She was recently elected as the President of the Nordic Fertility Society. She is associate editor for Human Reproduction Update.
Identification
Copyright
ScienceDirect
Access this article on ScienceDirectLinked Article
- And now for some weighty mattersReproductive BioMedicine OnlineVol. 23Issue 4
- PreviewThis issue contains two reports highlighting an association between obesity and IVF outcome (Pinborg et al., 2011; Rittenberg et al., 2011). Once again the findings show, now more robustly than ever, the detrimental effect of obesity on fertility. The studies also indicate that the efficacy of IVF technology diminishes not only in women who are obese, but also in those who are overweight. The term BMI (body mass index), so often used almost euphemistically by clinicians to soften any discussion with the overweight or obese, has been deliberately avoided here.
- Full-Text
- Preview