Luteal phase ovarian stimulation for poor ovarian responders

Wei Zhang, Meimei Wang, Shuang Wang, Hongchu Bao, Qinglan Qu, Ning Zhang, Cuifang Hao, Wei Zhang, Meimei Wang, Shuang Wang, Hongchu Bao, Qinglan Qu, Ning Zhang, Cuifang Hao

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical outcomes of follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation in women with poor ovarian response (Bologna criteria) undergoing IVF.

Methods: This retrospective study investigated 446 patients submitted to 507 cycles in three groups. First, the two larger cohorts were examined: 154 patients treated with luteal phase ovarian stimulation (Group Lu); and 231 patients administered follicular phase ovarian stimulation (Group Fo). Then the clinical outcomes of 61 patients submitted to double ovarian stimulation were analyzed. Clinical outcomes included number of retrieved oocytes, fertilization rate, cleavage rate, top-quality embryo rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and live birth rate (LBR).

Results: Longer stimulation, higher dosages of HMG, and higher MII oocyte rates were achieved in Group Lu (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in CPR and LBR between the two groups offered frozen-thawed embryo transfer (28.4% vs. 33.0%, p=0.484; 22.9% vs. 25.5%, p=0.666). In the double ovarian stimulation group, the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase stimulation protocol was higher (p=0.035), although luteal phase stimulation yielded a lower rate of MII oocytes (p=0.031). CPR and LBR were not statistically different (13.8% vs. 21.4%, p=0.525; 10.3% vs. 14.3%, p=0.706).

Conclusion: Luteal phase ovarian stimulation may be a promising protocol to treat women with POR, particularly for patients unable to yield enough viable embryos through follicular phase ovarian stimulation or other protocols.

Keywords: IVF-ET; Poor ovarian response; live birth rate; ovarian stimulation.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Double ovarian stimulation protocol during the follicular and luteal phases in patients with POR. CC, clomiphene citrate; HMG, human menopausal gonadotropin; r-HCG, recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin
Figure 2
Figure 2
Hormone replacement therapy protocol in FET

References

    1. Borges E, Braga DPAF, Setti A, Figueira RC, Iaconelli A Jr. The predictive value of serum concentrations of anti-Müllerian hormone for oocyte quality, fertilization, and implantation. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017;21:176–182. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20170035.
    1. Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, Eijkemans MJ, Mol BW, Broekmans FJ, IMPORT study group 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. 2013;19:26–36. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dms041.
    1. Buendgen NK, Schultze-Mosgau A, Cordes T, Diedrich K, Griesinger G. Initiation of ovarian stimulation independent of the menstrual cycle: a case-control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288:901–904. doi: 10.1007/s00404-013-2794-z.
    1. Cai QF, Wan F, Huang R, Zhang HW. Factors predicting the cumulative outcome of IVF/ICSI treatment: a multivariable analysis of 2450 patients. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2532–2540. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der228.
    1. Cardoso MCA, Evangelista A, Sartório C, Vaz G, Werneck CLV, Guimarães FM, Sá PG, Erthal MC. Can ovarian double-stimulation in the same menstrual cycle improve IVF outcomes? JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017;21:217–221. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20170042.
    1. Chai J, Lee VC, Yeung TW, Li HW, Ho PC, Ng EH. Live birth and cumulative live birth rates in expected poor ovarian responders defined by the Bologna criteria following IVF/ICSI treatment. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0119149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0119149.
    1. Choi B, Bosch E, Lannon BM, Leveille MC, Wong WH, Leader A, Pellicer A, Penzias AS, Yao MW. Personalized prediction of first-cycle in vitro fertilization success. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1905–1911. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.02.016.
    1. Cobo A, Garrido N, Crespo J, José R, Pellicer A. Accumulation of oocytes: a new strategy for managing low-responder patients. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24:424–432. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.12.012.
    1. Cohen J, Alikani M. The time has come to radically rethink assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27:323–324. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.08.001.
    1. De Vries MJ, De Sutter P, Dhont M. Prognostic factors in patients continuing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment and dropouts. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:674–678. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00334-9.
    1. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1616–1624. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der092.
    1. Kim SK, Lee JR, Jee BC, Suh CS, Kim SH. What number of oocytes is appropriate for defining poor ovarian response? Yonsei Med J. 2015;56:482–489. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.2.482.
    1. Kryou D, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Bontis J, Tarlazis BC. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2007;91:749–766. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.077.
    1. Kuang Y, Chen Q, Hong Q, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, Shoham Z. Double stimulations during the follicular and luteal phases of poor responders in IVF/ICSI programmes (Shanghai protocol) Reprod Biomed Online. 2014a;29:684–691. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.08.009.
    1. Kuang Y, Hong Q, Chen Q, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, Shoham Z. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2014b;101:105–111. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.007.
    1. Mitwally MF, Casper RF. Aromatase inhibition reduces gonadotrophin dose required for controlled ovarian stimulation in women with unexplained infertility. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1588–1597. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg311.
    1. Moffat R, Pirtea P, Gayet V, Wolf JP, Chapron C, de Ziegler D. Dual ovarian stimulation is a new viable option for enhancing the oocyte yield when the time for assisted reproductive technology is limited. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:659–661. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.08.010.
    1. Ozkaya E, San Roman G, Oktay K. Luteal phase GnRHa trigger in random start fertility preservation cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:503–505. doi: 10.1007/s10815-012-9752-8.
    1. Polyzos NP, 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;96:1058–1061.:e7. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.048.
    1. Sharma V, Allgar V, Rajkhowa M. Factors influencing the cumulative conception rate and discontinuation of in vitro fertilization treatment for infertility. Fertil Steril. 2002;78:40–46. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03160-6.
    1. Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Ferrero S, Baroni E, Sapienza F, Cobellis L, Greco E. Management of poor responders in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:235–246. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60946-7.
    1. Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Tarlatzi TB, Tarlatzis BC. Evidence-based management of poor ovarian response. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010;1205:199–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05665.x.
    1. van Loendersloot LL, van Wely M, Limpens J, Bossuyt PM, Repping S, van der Veen F. Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16:57–89. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmq015.
    1. Yoo JH, Cha SH, Park CW, Kim JY, Yang KM, Song IO, Koong MK, Kang IS, Kim HO. Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2011;38:159–163. doi: 10.5653/cerm.2011.38.3.159.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe