Comparison of Different Ovarian Hyperstimulation Protocols Efficacy in Poor Ovarian Responders According to the Bologna Criteria

Overview

Journal Int J Clin Exp Med

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2014 Jun 24

PMID 24955194

Citations 16

Authors

Linli Hu

Zhiqin Bu

Yihong Guo

Yingchun Su

Jun Zhai

Yingpu Sun

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Many protocols have been proposed to improve IVF outcomes for poor ovarian responders. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between age, ovarian hyperstimulation protocol and IVF/ICSI outcomes in poor ovarian responder (POR) according to the Bologna criteria, and to compare the efficacy of different protocols used in PORs undergoing IVF/ICSI. We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 4875 IVF/ICSI cycles, including 592 cycles of women diagnosed with POR according to Bologna criteria. We explored the association of age, different types of ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and prevalence of POR, IVF/ICSI outcomes. Age, basic FSH, AFC, and as well as ovarian hyperstimulation protocols, were all associated with POR. Irrespective of age, PORs in different ovarian hyperstimulation protocol groups had similar AFC, basic sex hormones, number of retrieved oocyte, implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate as well. However, PORs treated with mild stimulation protocol used least doses of gonadotropins and shortest days of stimulation compared with those treated with other protocols (P<.05). The current study has shown that age, basic FSH, AFC and ovarian stimulation protocols patients used are all significantly associated with POR according to the Bologna criteria. It seems that there is no difference in clinical outcomes such as clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate and spontaneous abortion rate between different protocols.

Citing Articles

The type of COVID-19 vaccination does not affect reproductive function and pregnancy outcomes in infertile couples.

Wang S, Wang N, Yao G, Su Y, Qi L Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024; 15:1356938.

PMID: 38948529 PMC: 11211519. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1356938.

Comparison of luteal phase stimulation with follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian response: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Vahabi Dastjerdi M, Ansaripour S, Ataei M, Gharedaghi R, Hoseini S, Mohazzab A Contracept Reprod Med. 2024; 9(1):6.

PMID: 38368372 PMC: 10874545. DOI: 10.1186/s40834-024-00265-z.

Flexible Antagonist versus Agonist Flare Protocol in Women above 40 Undergoing IVF, A retrospective Cohort Study.

Hassabelnabi E, Badreldin M, Behery M, Rageh K, Ali E JBRA Assist Reprod. 2023; 27(3):381-385.

PMID: 37134016 PMC: 10712806. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20220064.

Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two Three or More Implantation Failure.

Sun Y, Zhang Y, Ma X, Jia W, Su Y Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021; 12:619437.

PMID: 34367060 PMC: 8339466. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.619437.

The POSEIDON stratification - moving from poor ovarian response to low prognosis.

Roque M, Haahr T, Esteves S, Humaidan P JBRA Assist Reprod. 2021; 25(2):282-292.

PMID: 33565297 PMC: 8083858. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20200100.

References

Yakin K, Urman B . DHEA as a miracle drug in the treatment of poor responders; hype or hope?. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(8):1941-4. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der150. View

Ferraretti A, La Marca A, Fauser B, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L . ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(7):1616-24. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der092. View

Cheung L, Lam P, Lok I, Chiu T, Yeung S, Tjer C . GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2004; 20(3):616-21. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deh668. View

Garcia J, Jones G, Acosta A, Wright Jr G . Human menopausal gonadotropin/human chorionic gonadotropin follicular maturation for oocyte aspiration: phase II, 1981. Fertil Steril. 1983; 39(2):174-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)46815-9. View

Loutradis D, Drakakis P, Vomvolaki E, Antsaklis A . Different ovarian stimulation protocols for women with diminished ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007; 24(12):597-611. PMC: 3455002. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-007-9181-2. View

Polyzos N, Blockeel C, Verpoest W, De Vos M, Stoop D, Vloeberghs V . Live birth rates following natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27(12):3481-6. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/des318. View

Malmusi S, La Marca A, Giulini S, Xella S, Tagliasacchi D, Marsella T . Comparison of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and GnRH agonist flare-up regimen in poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2005; 84(2):402-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.139. View

Vollenhoven B, Osianlis T, Catt J . Is there an ideal stimulation regimen for IVF for poor responders and does it change with age?. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008; 25(11-12):523-9. PMC: 2593772. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-008-9274-6. View

Madani T, Ashrafi M, Mohammadi Yeganeh L . Comparison of different stimulation protocols efficacy in poor responders undergoing IVF: a retrospective study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012; 28(2):102-5. DOI: 10.3109/09513590.2011.579206. View

10.

Demirol A, Gurgan T . Comparison of microdose flare-up and antagonist multiple-dose protocols for poor-responder patients: a randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2008; 92(2):481-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.07.006. View

11.

Franco Jr J, Baruffi R, Mauri A, Petersen C, Felipe V, Cornicelli J . GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in poor ovarian responders: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 13(5):618-27. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60651-7. View

12.

Frydman R . Poor responders: still a problem. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96(5):1057. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.051. View

13.

Shanbhag S, Aucott L, Bhattacharya S, Hamilton M, McTavish A . Interventions for 'poor responders' to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007; (1):CD004379. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004379.pub2. View

14.

Bosdou J, Venetis C, Kolibianakis E, Toulis K, Goulis D, Zepiridis L . The use of androgens or androgen-modulating agents in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 18(2):127-45. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmr051. View

15.

Polyzos N, Devroey P . A systematic review of randomized trials for the treatment of poor ovarian responders: is there any light at the end of the tunnel?. Fertil Steril. 2011; 96(5):1058-61.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.048. View

16.

Keay S, Liversedge N, Mathur R, Jenkins J . Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104(5):521-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11525.x. View

17.

Griesinger G, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis B, Kolibianakis E . GnRH-antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with poor response to gonadotrophins, polycystic ovary syndrome, and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 13(5):628-38. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60652-9. View

18.

Pandian Z, McTavish A, Aucott L, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S . Interventions for 'poor responders' to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; (1):CD004379. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004379.pub3. View