Konstantinos Sfakianoudis1, Konstantinos Pantos1, Sokratis Grigoriadis2,3, Anna Rapani2,3, Evangelos Maziotis2,3, Petroula Tsioulou2,3, Polina Giannelou1,2, Adamantia Kontogeorgi2, Agni Pantou1, Nikolaos Vlahos3, Michael Koutsilieris2, Mara Simopoulou4,5. 1. Centre for Human Reproduction, Genesis Athens Clinic, 14-16, Papanikoli, 15232, Athens, Greece. 2. Department of Physiology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 75, Mikras Asias, 11527, Athens, Greece. 3. Assisted Conception Unit, 2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 76, Vasilisis Sofias Avenue, 11528, Athens, Greece. 4. Department of Physiology, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 75, Mikras Asias, 11527, Athens, Greece. marasimopoulou@hotmail.com. 5. Assisted Conception Unit, 2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Aretaieion Hospital, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 76, Vasilisis Sofias Avenue, 11528, Athens, Greece. marasimopoulou@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review including a meta-analytical approach aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of employing a double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) and a subsequent double oocyte retrieval in the same menstrual cycle, in poor ovarian reserve (POR) patients. METHODS: A systematic search of literature was performed in the databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library up until March 2019. Both prospective and retrospective cohort studies considered suitable for inclusion reported on women with POR undergoing a DuoStim in the follicular (FPS) and luteal phase (LPS) of the same menstrual cycle. Following the systematic review of the literature, a meta-analytical approach was attempted. RESULTS: This study indicates that DuoStim is correlated with a higher number of retrieved oocytes, mature MII oocytes, and good-quality embryos in comparison to conventional stimulation. Additionally, LPS seems to be correlated with an equal or an even higher overall performance in comparison to FPS. CONCLUSION: DuoStim favors an enhanced clinical outcome in regard to the total number of yielded oocytes, mature oocytes, and available embryos, along with the quality of obtained embryos. Sourced data indicate that LPS is not correlated with a higher aneuploidy rate. This option may present as promising for the time-sensitive nature of POR patients' management, by enabling a higher oocyte yield during a single menstrual cycle.
PURPOSE: This systematic review including a meta-analytical approach aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of employing a double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) and a subsequent double oocyte retrieval in the same menstrual cycle, in poor ovarian reserve (POR) patients. METHODS: A systematic search of literature was performed in the databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library up until March 2019. Both prospective and retrospective cohort studies considered suitable for inclusion reported on women with POR undergoing a DuoStim in the follicular (FPS) and luteal phase (LPS) of the same menstrual cycle. Following the systematic review of the literature, a meta-analytical approach was attempted. RESULTS: This study indicates that DuoStim is correlated with a higher number of retrieved oocytes, mature MII oocytes, and good-quality embryos in comparison to conventional stimulation. Additionally, LPS seems to be correlated with an equal or an even higher overall performance in comparison to FPS. CONCLUSION: DuoStim favors an enhanced clinical outcome in regard to the total number of yielded oocytes, mature oocytes, and available embryos, along with the quality of obtained embryos. Sourced data indicate that LPS is not correlated with a higher aneuploidy rate. This option may present as promising for the time-sensitive nature of POR patients' management, by enabling a higher oocyte yield during a single menstrual cycle.
Authors: N P Groome; P J Illingworth; M O'Brien; R Pai; F E Rodger; J P Mather; A S McNeilly Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1996-04 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: K P McNatty; S G Hillier; A M van den Boogaard; T C Trimbos-Kemper; L E Reichert; E V van Hall Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 1983-05 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Antonio Capalbo; Alberto Vaiarelli; Danilo Cimadomo; Silvia Colamaria; Carlo Alviggi; Elisabetta Trabucco; Roberta Venturella; Gábor Vajta; Laura Rienzi Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12