Can ovarian double-stimulation in the same menstrual cycle improve IVF outcomes?

Maria Cecília de Almeida Cardoso, Alessandra Evangelista, Cássio Sartório, George Vaz, Caio Luis Vieira Werneck, Fernando Marques Guimarães, Paulo Gallo de Sá, Maria Cecília Erthal, Maria Cecília de Almeida Cardoso, Alessandra Evangelista, Cássio Sartório, George Vaz, Caio Luis Vieira Werneck, Fernando Marques Guimarães, Paulo Gallo de Sá, Maria Cecília Erthal

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the double-stimulation protocol efficacy over conventional ovarian stimulation in recovering a more adequate number of oocytes and increase the number of embryos to be transferred or to be genetically analyzed.

Methods: A retrospective and comparative study with 13 patients who underwent unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles with a conventional antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol and repeat the attempt with a double stimulation protocol. The following variables were analyzed: number of oocytes collected, mature oocytes collected, fertilization rate, blastocyst rate, biopsied blastocyst rate and euploidy rate.

Results: The double stimulation protocol had a significant higher number of oocytes collected (p=0.007) and mature oocytes to be injected (p=0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in fertilization (p=0.78) and blastocyst (p=0.59) rates.

Conclusion: Double stimulation favors patients who are at risk of incurring several attempts of IVF to achieve pregnancy.

Keywords: blastocyst; in vitro fertilization; oocytes; ovarian stimulation.

References

    1. Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA. Characterization of ovarian follicular wave dynamics in women. Biol Reprod. 2003;69:1023–1031. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod.103.017772.
    1. Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA. Ovarian antral folliculogenesis during the human menstrual cycle: a review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:73–91. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr039.
    1. Chen H, Wang Y, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, Tian H, Cai R, Hong Q, Chen Q, Shoham Z, Kuang Y. Comparison of live-birth defects after luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs. conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization and vitrified embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:1194–1201.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.02.020.
    1. Cil AP, Bang H, Oktay K. Age-specific probability of live birth with oocyte cryopreservation: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:492–499.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.04.023.
    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. Harton GL, Munné S, Surrey M, Grifo J, Kaplan B, McCulloh DH, Griffin DK, Wells D, PGD Practitioners Group Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695–1703. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.2002.
    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. 2014a;101:105–111. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.007.
    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. 2014b;29:684–691. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.08.009.
    1. Lin LT, Wang PH, Tsui KH. 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;55:307–308. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2016.04.002.
    1. McAvey B, Zapantis A, Jindal SK, Lieman HJ, Polotsky AJ. How many eggs are needed to produce an assisted reproductive technology baby: is more always better? Fertil Steril. 2011;96:332–335. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.05.099.
    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. Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Colamaria S, Alviggi C, Trabucco E, Venturella R, Vajta G, Rienzi L. Follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation during the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim) in a reduced ovarian reserve population results in a similar euploid blastocyst formation rate: new insight in ovarian reserve exploitation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1488–1495.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.002.
    1. Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Heijnen EM, Broekmans FJ, de Klerk C, Fauser BC, Macklon NS. Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2050–2055. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den219.
    1. Wang N, Wang Y, Chen Q, Dong J, Tian H, Fu Y, Ai A, Lyu Q, Kuang Y. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs. conventional ovarian stimulation in patients with normal ovarian reserve treated for IVF: a large retrospective cohort study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2016;84:720–728. doi: 10.1111/cen.12983.
    1. Wei LH, Ma WH, Tang N, Wei JH. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is a feasible method for poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer treatment compared to a GnRH antagonist protocol: A retrospective study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55:50–54. doi: 10.1016/j.tjog.2015.07.001.
    1. Zhang J. Luteal phase ovarian stimulation following oocyte retrieval: is it helpful for poor responders? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:76–76. doi: 10.1186/s12958-015-0076-2.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa