Valerie L Baker1. 1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine, 900 Welch Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA. vlbaker@stanford.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide a perspective regarding mild ovarian stimulation, taking into account particular issues relevant in the United States METHODS: Literature review and editorial commentary RESULTS: Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF has some proven and some theoretical advantages over conventional stimulation, such as lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and lower cost per fresh IVF cycle. However, cumulative live birth rate, including transfers from fresh and frozen embryos, is likely to be lower with mild stimulation. The cost-effectiveness of mild stimulation IVF in the United States has not been established. CONCLUSIONS: Mild ovarian stimulation is an appropriate option to consider for certain patient groups or based on patient preference. However, significant potential disadvantages limit its widespread acceptability for patients in the United States at this time.
PURPOSE: To provide a perspective regarding mild ovarian stimulation, taking into account particular issues relevant in the United States METHODS: Literature review and editorial commentary RESULTS: Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF has some proven and some theoretical advantages over conventional stimulation, such as lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and lower cost per fresh IVF cycle. However, cumulative live birth rate, including transfers from fresh and frozen embryos, is likely to be lower with mild stimulation. The cost-effectiveness of mild stimulation IVF in the United States has not been established. CONCLUSIONS: Mild ovarian stimulation is an appropriate option to consider for certain patient groups or based on patient preference. However, significant potential disadvantages limit its widespread acceptability for patients in the United States at this time.
Authors: M F G Verberg; M J C Eijkemans; N S Macklon; E M E W Heijnen; E B Baart; F P Hohmann; B C J M Fauser; F J Broekmans Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Barbara Luke; Morton B Brown; Dean E Morbeck; Susan B Hudson; Charles C Coddington; Judy E Stern Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2009-07-09 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Valerie L Baker; Marina O Gvakharia; Heather M Rone; James R Manalad; G David Adamson Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: M F G Verberg; N S Macklon; G Nargund; R Frydman; P Devroey; F J Broekmans; B C J M Fauser Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2009 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: M F G Verberg; M J C Eijkemans; E M E W Heijnen; F J Broekmans; C de Klerk; B C J M Fauser; N S Macklon Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2008-06-10 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Valerie L Baker; Clarence E Jones; Barbara Cometti; Fred Hoehler; Bruno Salle; János Urbancsek; Michael R Soules Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2009-10-07 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Tara Shochet; Ioanna A Comstock; Nguyen Thi Nhu Ngoc; Lynn M Westphal; Wendy R Sheldon; Ly Thai Loc; Jennifer Blum; Beverly Winikoff; Paul D Blumenthal Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 2.809