The Impact of the Embryo Banking on the Cumulative Live Birth Rate in Women with Poor Ovarian Response According to the Bologna Criteria

Overview

Journal Reprod Med Biol

Specialty Biology

Date 2023 Aug 28

PMID 37638350

Authors

Qiu Lin Ge

Xiao Ming Teng

Miao Xin Chen

Kun Ming Li

Ernest Hung Yu Ng

Zhi Qin Chen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the impact of embryo banking on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and the time to live birth (TTLB) in poor ovarian responders (POR) according to the Bologna criteria.

Methods: A total of 276 infertile women undergoing IVF with POR were included in this retrospective study. They were divided into two groups with ( = 121) or without ( = 155) embryo banking at the discretion of the attending physicians. A total of 656 and 405 stimulation cycles were started in the two groups respectively during the 24 month follow-up.

Results: The biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth rate per transfer were comparable between two groups ( > 0.05). The CLBR was significantly lower in the banking group than in the non-banking group (31.4% (38/121) and 43.2% (67/151), < 0.05). TTLB was significantly longer in the banking group (20.5 months vs. 16.0 months, < 0.001). In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of live birth was significantly lower in the banking group compared with the non-banking group (Log rank test, chi-square = 21.958, < 0.001).

Conclusions: Embryo banking in women undergoing IVF with POR based on the Bologna criteria reduces CLBR and lengthens TTLB when compared with no embryo banking.

Citing Articles

The impact of the embryo banking on the cumulative live birth rate in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria.

Ge Q, Teng X, Chen M, Li K, Ng E, Chen Z Reprod Med Biol. 2023; 22(1):e12533.

PMID: 37638350 PMC: 10457668. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12533.

References

Broer S, van Disseldorp J, Broeze K, Dolleman M, Opmeer B, Bossuyt P . Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 19(1):26-36. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dms041. View

Ge Q, Teng X, Chen M, Li K, Ng E, Chen Z . The impact of the embryo banking on the cumulative live birth rate in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. Reprod Med Biol. 2023; 22(1):e12533. PMC: 10457668. DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12533. 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

Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, De Vos M, Tournaye H . Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos?. Hum Reprod. 2016; 31(2):370-6. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dev316. View

van Tilborg T, Broekmans F, Dolleman M, Eijkemans M, Mol B, Laven J . Individualized follicle-stimulating hormone dosing and in vitro fertilization outcome in agonist downregulated cycles: a systematic review. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016; 95(12):1333-1344. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13032. View

Devroey P, Polyzos N, Blockeel C . An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(10):2593-7. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der251. View

Greco E, Litwicka K, Arrivi C, Varricchio M, Zavaglia D, Mencacci C . Accumulation of oocytes from a few modified natural cycles to improve IVF results: a pilot study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013; 30(11):1465-70. PMC: 3879935. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-013-0103-1. View

Sini I, Polim A, Handayani N, Pratiwi A, Thuffi R, Yusup N . Embryo Banking with Mild Ovarian Stimulation for IVF: An Alternative Strategy for Poor Prognosis Patients. J Reprod Infertil. 2020; 21(3):176-182. PMC: 7362096. View

Sunkara S, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A . Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(7):1768-74. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der106. View

10.

Jin B, Niu Z, Xu B, Chen Q, Zhang A . Comparison of clinical outcomes among dual ovarian stimulation, mild stimulation and luteal phase stimulation protocols in women with poor ovarian response. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018; 34(8):694-697. DOI: 10.1080/09513590.2018.1435636. View

11.

Veeck L . Oocyte assessment and biological performance. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1988; 541:259-74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1988.tb22263.x. View

12.

Chatziparasidou A, Nijs M, Moisidou M, Chara O, Ioakeimidou C, Pappas C . Accumulation of oocytes and/or embryos by vitrification: a new strategy for managing poor responder patients undergoing pre implantation diagnosis. F1000Res. 2014; 2:240. PMC: 4111112. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.2-240.v2. View

13.

Giannelou P, Simopoulou M, Grigoriadis S, Makrakis E, Kontogeorgi A, Pantou A . The Conundrum of Poor Ovarian Response: From Diagnosis to Treatment. Diagnostics (Basel). 2020; 10(9). PMC: 7555981. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics10090687. View

14.

Ata B, Capuzzo M, Turkgeldi E, Yildiz S, La Marca A . Progestins for pituitary suppression during ovarian stimulation for ART: a comprehensive and systematic review including meta-analyses. Hum Reprod Update. 2020; 27(1):48-66. DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa040. View

15.

Youssef M, van Wely M, Al-Inany H, Madani T, Jahangiri N, Khodabakhshi S . A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2016; 32(1):112-118. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/dew282. View

16.

Verberg M, Eijkemans M, Heijnen E, Broekmans F, de Klerk C, Fauser B . Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23(9):2050-5. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/den219. View

17.

Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Ubaldi N, Rienzi L, Ubaldi F . What is new in the management of poor ovarian response in IVF?. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 30(3):155-162. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000452. View

18.

van der Gaast M, Eijkemans M, van der Net J, de Boer E, Burger C, van Leeuwen F . Optimum number of oocytes for a successful first IVF treatment cycle. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 13(4):476-80. DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60633-5. View

19.

Sadeghi M . Oocytes/Embryos Banking: A Vague Hope for Poor Responder Women. J Reprod Infertil. 2018; 19(3):123-124. PMC: 6104429. View

20.

Revelli A, Chiado A, Dalmasso P, Stabile V, Evangelista F, Basso G . "Mild" vs. "long" protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in patients with expected poor ovarian responsiveness undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF): a large prospective randomized trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014; 31(7):809-15. PMC: 4096882. DOI: 10.1007/s10815-014-0227-y. View