Comparison of Luteal Phase Stimulation with Follicular Phase Stimulation in Poor Ovarian Response: a Single-blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview

Journal Contracept Reprod Med

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Reproductive Medicine

Date 2024 Feb 17

PMID 38368372

Authors

Mozhgan Vahabi Dastjerdi

Soheila Ansaripour

Mina Ataei

Roya Gharedaghi

Seyedeh Melika Mostafavi Hoseini

Arash Mohazzab

Simin Zafardoust

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: In the last decade, luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) has been suggested as an alternative controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles mainly in women with a history of poor ovarian response (POR). The present randomized controlled trial study aimed to compare the outcomes of follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) and LPOS protocols in POR cases undergoing ICSI cycles.

Methods: Seventy-eight POR patients who met the Bologna criteria and underwent an ICSI cycle were included. In this study, 39 POR cases were allocated to the FPOS group, and 39 POR cases were allocated to the LPOS group. The primary outcome was the number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes. In addition, the total number of oocytes, number of top-quality day 3 embryo, day 3 embryo development rate, chemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates were defined as secondary outcomes.

Results: The obtained results demonstrated that the number of MII oocytes significantly increased in the LPOS group compared to the FPOS group (P = 0.007). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of GV and MI oocytes, number of top-quality day 3 embryos and day 3 embryo development rate among both categories of patients. Also, the number of total and MII oocytes was significantly higher in the LPOS group (P = 0.016).

Conclusion: These results suggest that LPOS protocol effectively increases the number of mature oocytes in women with a history of POR.

Trial Registration: IRCT20210405050852N1 (Registered at Iranian registry of clinical trials; available at https://en.irct.ir/trial/55402 ).

References

Zafardoust S, Ansaripor S, Karimi A, Hosseinirad H, Ataei M . Effects of Adjuvant Growth Hormone Therapy on Poor Ovarian Responders in Assisted Reproductive Technology. Maedica (Bucur). 2022; 17(2):336-343. PMC: 9375882. DOI: 10.26574/maedica.2022.17.2.336. View

Zafardoust S, Kazemnejad S, Darzi M, Fathi-Kazerooni M, Saffarian Z, Khalili N . Intraovarian Administration of Autologous Menstrual Blood Derived-Mesenchymal Stromal Cells in Women with Premature Ovarian Failure. Arch Med Res. 2023; 54(2):135-144. DOI: 10.1016/j.arcmed.2022.12.015. View

von Wolff M, Thaler C, Frambach T, Zeeb C, Lawrenz B, Popovici R . Ovarian stimulation to cryopreserve fertilized oocytes in cancer patients can be started in the luteal phase. Fertil Steril. 2008; 92(4):1360-1365. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.011. View

Hu L, Bu Z, Guo Y, Su Y, Zhai J, Sun Y . Comparison of different ovarian hyperstimulation protocols efficacy in poor ovarian responders according to the Bologna criteria. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014; 7(4):1128-34. PMC: 4057873. View

Chen Y, Li J, Li C, Tsui K, Wang P, Wen Z . Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation versus Follicular Phase Ovarian Stimulation results in different Human Cumulus cell genes expression: A pilot study. Int J Med Sci. 2021; 18(7):1600-1608. PMC: 7976567. DOI: 10.7150/ijms.55955. View

Creux H, Monnier P, Son W, Tulandi T, Buckett W . Immature oocyte retrieval and in vitro oocyte maturation at different phases of the menstrual cycle in women with cancer who require urgent gonadotoxic treatment. Fertil Steril. 2016; 107(1):198-204. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.09.041. View

Lin L, Vitale S, Chen S, Wen Z, Tsai H, Chern C . Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation May Improve Oocyte Retrieval and Oocyte Quality in Poor Ovarian Responders Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: Preliminary Results from a Single-Center Prospective Pilot Study. Adv Ther. 2018; 35(6):847-856. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-018-0713-1. View

Herraiz S, Romeu M, Buigues A, Martinez S, Diaz-Garcia C, Gomez-Segui I . Autologous stem cell ovarian transplantation to increase reproductive potential in patients who are poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2018; 110(3):496-505.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.025. View

Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Trabucco E, Vallefuoco R, Buffo L, Dusi L . Double Stimulation in the Same Ovarian Cycle (DuoStim) to Maximize the Number of Oocytes Retrieved From Poor Prognosis Patients: A Multicenter Experience and SWOT Analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018; 9:317. PMC: 6010525. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00317. View

10.

. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26(6):1270-83. DOI: 10.1093/humrep/der037. View

11.

Rombauts L, Suikkari A, MacLachlan V, Trounson A, Healy D . Recruitment of follicles by recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone commencing in the luteal phase of the ovarian cycle. Fertil Steril. 1998; 69(4):665-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00018-1. View

12.

Jochum F, Sananes N, Teletin M, Lichtblau I, Rongieres C, Pirrello O . Luteal phase stimulation, the future of fertility preservation? Retrospective cohort study of luteal phase versus follicular phase stimulation. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018; 48(2):91-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.11.003. View

13.

Cakmak H, Katz A, Cedars M, Rosen M . Effective method for emergency fertility preservation: random-start controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100(6):1673-80. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.1992. 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.

Lin L, Wang P, Tsui K . The use of luteal-phase ovarian stimulation for poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer treatment. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 55(3):307-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2016.04.002. View

16.

Martinez F, Clua E, Devesa M, Rodriguez I, Arroyo G, Gonzalez C . Comparison of starting ovarian stimulation on day 2 versus day 15 of the menstrual cycle in the same oocyte donor and pregnancy rates among the corresponding recipients of vitrified oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2014; 102(5):1307-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.07.741. View

17.

Zhang X, Feng T, Yang J, Hao Y, Li S, Zhang Y . A flexible short protocol in women with poor ovarian response over 40 years old. J Ovarian Res. 2021; 14(1):3. PMC: 7786950. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-020-00761-1. View

18.

Berkkanoglu M, Ozgur K . What is the optimum maximal gonadotropin dosage used in microdose flare-up cycles in poor responders?. Fertil Steril. 2009; 94(2):662-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.027. View

19.

Conforti A, Esteves S, Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Di Rella F, Ubaldi F . Management of Women With an Unexpected Low Ovarian Response to Gonadotropin. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019; 10:387. PMC: 6610322. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00387. View

20.

Zhang W, Wang M, Wang S, Bao H, Qu Q, Zhang N . Luteal phase ovarian stimulation for poor ovarian responders. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018; 22(3):193-198. PMC: 6106630. DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20180045. View