Cargando…
Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders
OBJECTIVE: To compare the IVF outcomes of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders. METHODS: From 2004 to 2009, 389 IVF cycles in 285 women showed poor responses (defined as either a basal FSH level ≥12 mIU/mL, or the number of retrieved oocytes ≤3, or serum...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3283064/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22384436 http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2011.38.3.159 |
_version_ | 1782224168920547328 |
---|---|
author | Yoo, Ji Hee Cha, Sun Hwa Park, Chan Woo Kim, Jin Young Yang, Kwang Moon Song, In Ok Koong, Mi Kyoung Kang, Inn Soo Kim, Hye Ok |
author_facet | Yoo, Ji Hee Cha, Sun Hwa Park, Chan Woo Kim, Jin Young Yang, Kwang Moon Song, In Ok Koong, Mi Kyoung Kang, Inn Soo Kim, Hye Ok |
author_sort | Yoo, Ji Hee |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To compare the IVF outcomes of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders. METHODS: From 2004 to 2009, 389 IVF cycles in 285 women showed poor responses (defined as either a basal FSH level ≥12 mIU/mL, or the number of retrieved oocytes ≤3, or serum E(2) level on hCG day <500 pg/mL) were analyzed, retrospectively. In total, 119 cycles with mild ovarian stimulation (m-IVF) and 270 cycles with conventional ovarian stimulation (c-IVF) were included. Both groups were divided based on their age, into groups over and under 37 years old. RESULTS: The m-IVF group was lower than the c-IVF group in the duration of stimulation, total doses of gonadotropins used, serum E(2) level on hCG day, the number of retrieved oocytes, and the number of mature oocytes. However, there was no significant difference in the number of good embryos, the number of transferred embryos, the cancellation rate, or the clinical pregnancy rate. In the m-IVF group over 37 years old, the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were higher when compared with the c-IVF group, but this result was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In poor responder groups, mild ovarian stimulation is more cost effective and patient friendly than conventional IVF. Therefore, we suggest that mild ovarian stimulation could be considered for poor responders over 37 years old. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3283064 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-32830642012-03-01 Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders Yoo, Ji Hee Cha, Sun Hwa Park, Chan Woo Kim, Jin Young Yang, Kwang Moon Song, In Ok Koong, Mi Kyoung Kang, Inn Soo Kim, Hye Ok Clin Exp Reprod Med Original Article OBJECTIVE: To compare the IVF outcomes of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders. METHODS: From 2004 to 2009, 389 IVF cycles in 285 women showed poor responses (defined as either a basal FSH level ≥12 mIU/mL, or the number of retrieved oocytes ≤3, or serum E(2) level on hCG day <500 pg/mL) were analyzed, retrospectively. In total, 119 cycles with mild ovarian stimulation (m-IVF) and 270 cycles with conventional ovarian stimulation (c-IVF) were included. Both groups were divided based on their age, into groups over and under 37 years old. RESULTS: The m-IVF group was lower than the c-IVF group in the duration of stimulation, total doses of gonadotropins used, serum E(2) level on hCG day, the number of retrieved oocytes, and the number of mature oocytes. However, there was no significant difference in the number of good embryos, the number of transferred embryos, the cancellation rate, or the clinical pregnancy rate. In the m-IVF group over 37 years old, the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were higher when compared with the c-IVF group, but this result was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In poor responder groups, mild ovarian stimulation is more cost effective and patient friendly than conventional IVF. Therefore, we suggest that mild ovarian stimulation could be considered for poor responders over 37 years old. The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine 2011-09 2011-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC3283064/ /pubmed/22384436 http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2011.38.3.159 Text en Copyright © 2011. The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Yoo, Ji Hee Cha, Sun Hwa Park, Chan Woo Kim, Jin Young Yang, Kwang Moon Song, In Ok Koong, Mi Kyoung Kang, Inn Soo Kim, Hye Ok Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders |
title | Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders |
title_full | Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders |
title_fullStr | Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders |
title_short | Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders |
title_sort | comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3283064/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22384436 http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2011.38.3.159 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yoojihee comparisonofmildovarianstimulationwithconventionalovarianstimulationinpoorresponders AT chasunhwa comparisonofmildovarianstimulationwithconventionalovarianstimulationinpoorresponders AT parkchanwoo comparisonofmildovarianstimulationwithconventionalovarianstimulationinpoorresponders AT kimjinyoung comparisonofmildovarianstimulationwithconventionalovarianstimulationinpoorresponders AT yangkwangmoon comparisonofmildovarianstimulationwithconventionalovarianstimulationinpoorresponders AT songinok comparisonofmildovarianstimulationwithconventionalovarianstimulationinpoorresponders AT koongmikyoung comparisonofmildovarianstimulationwithconventionalovarianstimulationinpoorresponders AT kanginnsoo comparisonofmildovarianstimulationwithconventionalovarianstimulationinpoorresponders AT kimhyeok comparisonofmildovarianstimulationwithconventionalovarianstimulationinpoorresponders |