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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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