Literature DB >> 28358705

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

Charalampos Siristatidis1, George Salamalekis2, Konstantinos Dafopoulos3, George Basios2, Paraskevi Vogiatzi2, Nikolaos Papantoniou2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: Mild stimulation protocols have been implemented to be offered to subfertile patients who respond poorly to ovarian stimulation. We aimed to compare the efficacy of mild versus conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-agonist and antagonist protocols in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 58 poorly-responding patients were divided into two groups: mild group (n=33), receiving clomiphene citrate 100 mg and 0.25 mg of cetrorelix with 150 IU of gonadotrophins daily; conventional group (n=25), undergoing the long GnRH-agonist or -antagonist protocols. The primary outcome was the number of cumulus oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved.
RESULTS: A lower number of COCs [median (range)=1 (0-4) vs. 3 (0-8.4), p<0.001] was retrieved in the mild stimulation compared to the conventional group. Secondary outcomes favored the conventional group, whereas live birth (9.1% vs. 12%), clinical pregnancy (12.1% vs. 20%) and miscarriage rate (40% vs. 40%) were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Mild ovarian stimulation is inferior to conventional regimes when applied to poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI, in terms of the numbers of retrieved COCs. Copyright
© 2017, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; clomiphene citrate; mild stimulation; poor responders; recombinant FSH

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28358705      PMCID: PMC5411750          DOI: 10.21873/invivo.11050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  In Vivo        ISSN: 0258-851X            Impact factor:   2.155


  39 in total

Review 1.  Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity.

Authors:  Paul Devroey; Claire Bourgain; Nicholas S Macklon; Bart C J M Fauser
Journal:  Trends Endocrinol Metab       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 12.015

2.  Comparison of mild and microdose GnRH agonist flare protocols on IVF outcome in poor responders.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Karimzadeh; Mehri Mashayekhy; Farnaz Mohammadian; Fatemeh Mansoori Moghaddam
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2011-01-09       Impact factor: 2.344

3.  GnRH antagonist/letrozole versus microdose GnRH agonist flare protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Robab Davar; Homa Oskouian; Shahnaz Ahmadi; Razieh Dehghani Firouzabadi
Journal:  Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 1.705

Review 4.  The effectiveness of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jinsong Xiao; Shuang Chang; Shuangyun Chen
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 7.329

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

Authors:  Yu Li; Wan Yang; Xiaoli Chen; Lin Li; Qingxue Zhang; Dongzi Yang
Journal:  Gynecol Endocrinol       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.260

Review 6.  Evaluation and treatment of low responders in assisted reproductive technology: a challenge to meet.

Authors:  S J Fasouliotis; A Simon; N Laufer
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.412

7.  Sequential use of letrozole and gonadotrophin in women with poor ovarian reserve: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Vivian Chi Yan Lee; Carina Chi Wai Chan; Ernest Hung Yu Ng; William Shu Biu Yeung; Pak Chung Ho
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 3.828

8.  Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF.

Authors:  Danhua Pu; Jie Wu; Jiayin Liu
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2011-07-21       Impact factor: 6.918

9.  450 IU versus 600 IU gonadotropin for controlled ovarian stimulation in poor responders: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jessica Lefebvre; Roland Antaki; Isaac-Jacques Kadoch; Nicola L Dean; Camille Sylvestre; François Bissonnette; Joanne Benoit; Sylvain Ménard; Louise Lapensée
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-09-08       Impact factor: 7.329

10.  Minimal ovarian stimulation combined with elective single embryo transfer policy: age-specific results of a large, single-centre, Japanese cohort.

Authors:  Keiichi Kato; Yuji Takehara; Tomoya Segawa; Satoshi Kawachiya; Takashi Okuno; Tamotsu Kobayashi; Daniel Bodri; Osamu Kato
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 5.211

View more
  4 in total

1.  Embryo Banking with Mild Ovarian Stimulation for IVF: An Alternative Strategy for Poor Prognosis Patients.

Authors:  Ivan Sini; Arie A Polim; Nining Handayani; Adinda Pratiwi; Rosalina Thuffi; Nuraeni Yusup; Arief Boediono
Journal:  J Reprod Infertil       Date:  2020 Jul-Sep

2.  Co-Administration of Clomiphene Citrate and Letrozole in Mild Ovarian Stimulation Versus Conventional Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Among POSEIDON Group 4 Patients.

Authors:  Hsin-Ta Lin; Meng-Hsing Wu; Li-Chung Tsai; Ta-Sheng Chen; Huang-Tz Ou
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-01-14       Impact factor: 5.555

3.  Future Fertility of Patients With No Embryo Transfer in Their First IVF Cycle Attempts.

Authors:  Xuli Zhu; Mingya Cao; Zhaohui Yao; Peiyang Lu; Yueming Xu; Guimin Hao; Zhiming Zhao
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 6.055

4.  Comparison of modified agonist, mild-stimulation and antagonist protocols for in vitro fertilization in patients with diminished ovarian reserve.

Authors:  Rong Yu; Hao Jin; Xuefeng Huang; Jinju Lin; Peiyu Wang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2018-04-25       Impact factor: 1.671

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.