Literature DB >> 26370530

Comparison between follicular stimulation and luteal stimulation protocols with clomiphene and HMG in women with poor ovarian response.

Yu Li1, Wan Yang2, Xiaoli Chen1, Lin Li1, Qingxue Zhang1, Dongzi Yang1.   

Abstract

This retrospective study is to compare the follicular mild stimulation and luteal simulation protocols for poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). A total of 131 women were diagnosed as poor responders. Thirty-three women started ovarian stimulation in early-luteal phase and 98 women started in early follicular phase with 100 mg/d clomiphene citrate and 75-150 IU/d HMG. There were more oocytes retrieved (2.8 ± 2.0 versus 2.0 ± 1.2, p < 0.05), more available embryos (1.8 ± 1.4 versus 1.3 ± 1.1, p < 0.05) and top-quality embryos (0.9 ± 0.9 versus 0.4 ± 0.6, p < 0.05), and reduced cycle cancellation rate (12.1% versus 30.6%, p < 0.05) in luteal group than in follicular group. The clinical pregnancy (17.7%, 20.0% and 41.2%) and live-birth rates (10.78%, 20.0% and 29.4%) after transferring embryos obtained from luteal, follicular and mixed stages were comparable (p > 0.05). For poor responders, luteal phase stimulation could be an option because of increasing the chance to obtain competent embryos and reducing the cycle cancellation rate.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assisted reproductive technology; in vitro fertilization; luteal phase; ovarian stimulation; poor ovarian response

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26370530     DOI: 10.3109/09513590.2015.1081683

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol        ISSN: 0951-3590            Impact factor:   2.260


  9 in total

1.  Similar miRNomic signatures characterize the follicular fluids collected after follicular and luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle.

Authors:  Danilo Cimadomo; Ramona Carmelo; Elvira Immacolata Parrotta; Stefania Scalise; Gianluca Santamaria; Erminia Alviggi; Maria Teresa De Angelis; Gianmarco Sarro; Alberto Vaiarelli; Roberta Venturella; Laura Rienzi; Fulvio Zullo; Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Giovanni Cuda
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  The curious case of premature luteinization.

Authors:  Apostolos Kaponis; Elpiniki Chronopoulou; George Decavalas
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Mild Versus Conventional Ovarian Stimulation for Poor Responders Undergoing IVF/ICSI.

Authors:  Charalampos Siristatidis; George Salamalekis; Konstantinos Dafopoulos; George Basios; Paraskevi Vogiatzi; Nikolaos Papantoniou
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2017 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 4.  Revisiting debates of premature luteinization and its effect on assisted reproductive technology outcome.

Authors:  Reda S Hussein; Ihab Elnashar; Ahmed F Amin; Hisham A Abou-Taleb; Ahmed M Abbas; Ahmed M Abdelmageed; Tarek Farghaly; Yulian Zhao
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 5.  ART outcomes following ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase:a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Buo-Jia Lu; Chien-Ju Lin; Bou-Zenn Lin; Li Huang; Li-Ting Chien; Chi-Huang Chen
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 3.357

6.  Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle.

Authors:  Danilo Cimadomo; Alberto Vaiarelli; Silvia Colamaria; Elisabetta Trabucco; Carlo Alviggi; Roberta Venturella; Erminia Alviggi; Ramona Carmelo; Laura Rienzi; Filippo Maria Ubaldi
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2018-08-01       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 7.  Advanced Maternal Age in IVF: Still a Challenge? The Present and the Future of Its Treatment.

Authors:  Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Danilo Cimadomo; Alberto Vaiarelli; Gemma Fabozzi; Roberta Venturella; Roberta Maggiulli; Rossella Mazzilli; Susanna Ferrero; Antonio Palagiano; Laura Rienzi
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2019-02-20       Impact factor: 5.555

8.  Luteal phase stimulation versus follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian responders: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Joaquín Llácer; Belén Moliner; Lydia Luque; Andrea Bernabéu; Belén Lledó; Juan Carlos Castillo; Jaime Guerrero; Jorge Ten; Rafael Bernabéu
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 5.211

9.  Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation vs mild stimulation in women with advanced age above 40: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Qian Peng; Xiang Cao; Jing Wang; Lin Wang; Jun Xu; Xiaowei Ji; Suying Liu; Jin Zhu; Xi Dong
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 5.211

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.