Cargando…

Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy

BACKGROUND: In patients treated with IVF, the incidence of poor ovarian response (POR) after ovarian stimulation varies from 9 to 25 %. However, at present, there are no clear guidelines for treating these poor responders. This study was designed to compare two different ovarian stimulation protocol...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Merviel, Philippe, Cabry-Goubet, Rosalie, Lourdel, Emmanuelle, Devaux, Aviva, Belhadri-Mansouri, Naima, Copin, Henri, Benkhalifa, Moncef
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26025412
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0039-2
_version_ 1782375422149787648
author Merviel, Philippe
Cabry-Goubet, Rosalie
Lourdel, Emmanuelle
Devaux, Aviva
Belhadri-Mansouri, Naima
Copin, Henri
Benkhalifa, Moncef
author_facet Merviel, Philippe
Cabry-Goubet, Rosalie
Lourdel, Emmanuelle
Devaux, Aviva
Belhadri-Mansouri, Naima
Copin, Henri
Benkhalifa, Moncef
author_sort Merviel, Philippe
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In patients treated with IVF, the incidence of poor ovarian response (POR) after ovarian stimulation varies from 9 to 25 %. However, at present, there are no clear guidelines for treating these poor responders. This study was designed to compare two different ovarian stimulation protocols and addresses future perspectives in the management of these unfortunate patients. METHOD: Four hundred and forty poor responders were studied during their second IVF cycle. They had all failed to become pregnant during their first IVF cycle where the long GnRH-agonist stimulation protocol (P1) was used. Patients were prospectively randomly assigned to 2 protocol groups (P2 or P3, 220 patients in each arm) at the start of ovarian stimulation according to the order of entry into the study including one patient per each stimulation protocols: The P2 group was treated with a contraceptive pill + flare-up GnRH-agonist protocol and the P3 group with the GnRH-antagonist protocol. The ovarian stimulation characteristics as well as the clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were compared. RESULT(S): Although the numbers of embryos obtained and transferred were significantly higher with the P2 protocol, the implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer were the same in the two studied groups (8.9 % versus 14.6 % and 8.4 % versus 14.2 % for the P2 and P3 protocols, respectively). Good prognostic factors for ongoing pregnancy with both protocols were: a maternal age <36, no tobacco consumption, a total dose of gonadotropins injection <5000 IU and an endometrial thickness >10 mm. CONCLUSION(S): In poorly responding patients treated with IVF, the implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer were not significantly different between the two protocols studied: contraceptive pill + flare-up GnRH-agonist protocol and the GnRH-antagonist protocol. It is suggested that current strategies for the management of poor responders be reconsidered in the light of the potential contribution of age and the effect of life style changes on fertility potential. A customised policy of ovarian stimulation in these patients including mild stimulation protocols, sequential IVF cycles, oocytes-embryos freeze all protocols and blastocyst transfers after screening may improve the clinical outcome.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4460718
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44607182015-06-10 Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy Merviel, Philippe Cabry-Goubet, Rosalie Lourdel, Emmanuelle Devaux, Aviva Belhadri-Mansouri, Naima Copin, Henri Benkhalifa, Moncef Reprod Health Research BACKGROUND: In patients treated with IVF, the incidence of poor ovarian response (POR) after ovarian stimulation varies from 9 to 25 %. However, at present, there are no clear guidelines for treating these poor responders. This study was designed to compare two different ovarian stimulation protocols and addresses future perspectives in the management of these unfortunate patients. METHOD: Four hundred and forty poor responders were studied during their second IVF cycle. They had all failed to become pregnant during their first IVF cycle where the long GnRH-agonist stimulation protocol (P1) was used. Patients were prospectively randomly assigned to 2 protocol groups (P2 or P3, 220 patients in each arm) at the start of ovarian stimulation according to the order of entry into the study including one patient per each stimulation protocols: The P2 group was treated with a contraceptive pill + flare-up GnRH-agonist protocol and the P3 group with the GnRH-antagonist protocol. The ovarian stimulation characteristics as well as the clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were compared. RESULT(S): Although the numbers of embryos obtained and transferred were significantly higher with the P2 protocol, the implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer were the same in the two studied groups (8.9 % versus 14.6 % and 8.4 % versus 14.2 % for the P2 and P3 protocols, respectively). Good prognostic factors for ongoing pregnancy with both protocols were: a maternal age <36, no tobacco consumption, a total dose of gonadotropins injection <5000 IU and an endometrial thickness >10 mm. CONCLUSION(S): In poorly responding patients treated with IVF, the implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer were not significantly different between the two protocols studied: contraceptive pill + flare-up GnRH-agonist protocol and the GnRH-antagonist protocol. It is suggested that current strategies for the management of poor responders be reconsidered in the light of the potential contribution of age and the effect of life style changes on fertility potential. A customised policy of ovarian stimulation in these patients including mild stimulation protocols, sequential IVF cycles, oocytes-embryos freeze all protocols and blastocyst transfers after screening may improve the clinical outcome. BioMed Central 2015-05-30 /pmc/articles/PMC4460718/ /pubmed/26025412 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0039-2 Text en © Merviel et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Merviel, Philippe
Cabry-Goubet, Rosalie
Lourdel, Emmanuelle
Devaux, Aviva
Belhadri-Mansouri, Naima
Copin, Henri
Benkhalifa, Moncef
Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy
title Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy
title_full Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy
title_fullStr Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy
title_full_unstemmed Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy
title_short Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy
title_sort comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4460718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26025412
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12978-015-0039-2
work_keys_str_mv AT mervielphilippe comparativeprospectivestudyof2ovarianstimulationprotocolsinpoorresponderseffectonimplantationrateandongoingpregnancy
AT cabrygoubetrosalie comparativeprospectivestudyof2ovarianstimulationprotocolsinpoorresponderseffectonimplantationrateandongoingpregnancy
AT lourdelemmanuelle comparativeprospectivestudyof2ovarianstimulationprotocolsinpoorresponderseffectonimplantationrateandongoingpregnancy
AT devauxaviva comparativeprospectivestudyof2ovarianstimulationprotocolsinpoorresponderseffectonimplantationrateandongoingpregnancy
AT belhadrimansourinaima comparativeprospectivestudyof2ovarianstimulationprotocolsinpoorresponderseffectonimplantationrateandongoingpregnancy
AT copinhenri comparativeprospectivestudyof2ovarianstimulationprotocolsinpoorresponderseffectonimplantationrateandongoingpregnancy
AT benkhalifamoncef comparativeprospectivestudyof2ovarianstimulationprotocolsinpoorresponderseffectonimplantationrateandongoingpregnancy