|
 |
|
REVIEW ARTICLE |
|
|
|
|
| Year : 2022 | Volume
: 15
| Issue : 2 | Page : 112-125 |
| |
Ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles for varied patient profiles: An Indian perspective
Padma Rekha Jirge1, Madhuri Milind Patil2, Rohit Gutgutia3, Jatin Shah4, Mridubhashini Govindarajan5, Varsha Samson Roy6, Nalini Kaul-Mahajan7, Faddy I Sharara8
1 Shreyas Hospital and Sushrut Assisted Conception Clinic, Kohlhapur, India
2 Dr. Patil's Fertility & Endoscopy Clinic, Bangalore, India
3 Nova IVF Fertility East, Kolkata, India
4 Mumbai Fertility Clinic & IVF Centre, Mumbai, India
5 Women's Centre Hospital, Coimbatore, India
6 Advanced Fertility Centre, Bangalore, India
7 Mother & Child Hospital, New Delhi, India
8 Virginia Center for Reproductive Medicine, Reston; Department of O&G, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
| Date of Submission | 08-May-2022 |
| Date of Decision | 21-Jun-2022 |
| Date of Acceptance | 23-Jun-2022 |
| Date of Web Publication | 30-Jun-2022 |
Correspondence Address:
Nalini Kaul-Mahajan
Mother and Child Hospital, D-64 Defence Colony, New Delhi - 110 024
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_59_22
 Abstract | | |
Controlled ovarian stimulation has been an integral part of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment cycles. Availability of different gonadotropins for ovarian stimulation and gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues for prevention of premature rise of leutinising hormone during follicular phase offer an opportunity to utilise them for a successful outcome in women with different subsets of ovarian response. Further, use of GnRH agonist as an alternative for human chorionic gonadotropin improves safety of ovarian stimulation in hyper-responders. Mild ovarian stimulation protocols have emerged as an alternative to conventional protocols in the recent years. Individualisation plays an important role in improving safety of IVF in hyper-responders while efforts continue to improve efficacy in poor responders. Some of the follicular and peri-ovulatory phase interventions may be associated with negative impact on the luteal phase and segmentalisation of the treatment with frozen embryo transfer may be an effective strategy in such a clinical scenario. This narrative review looks at the available evidence on various aspects of ovarian stimulation strategies and their consequences. In addition, it provides a concise summary of the evidence that has emerged from India on various aspects of ovarian stimulation.
Keywords: Controlled ovarian stimulation, hyper-responders, in vitro fertilization, normo-responders, poor responders
How to cite this article:
Jirge PR, Patil MM, Gutgutia R, Shah J, Govindarajan M, Roy VS, Kaul-Mahajan N, Sharara FI. Ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles for varied patient profiles: An Indian perspective. J Hum Reprod Sci 2022;15:112-25 |
How to cite this URL:
Jirge PR, Patil MM, Gutgutia R, Shah J, Govindarajan M, Roy VS, Kaul-Mahajan N, Sharara FI. Ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles for varied patient profiles: An Indian perspective. J Hum Reprod Sci [serial online] 2022 [cited 2023 Mar 29];15:112-25. Available from: https://www.jhrsonline.org/text.asp?2022/15/2/112/349556 |
| Introduction | |  |
Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) to obtain multiple oocytes forms the mainstay of assisted reproduction treatments (ART). While cumulative live birth rate (LBR) increases with increasing number of oocytes, an oocyte yield beyond fifteen increases the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) without further improvement in the pregnancy rate.[1],[2] Ovarian response to COS is largely dependent on the ovarian reserve of an individual undergoing ART. While first cycle of ART was traditionally considered as the true test of ovarian reserve, pre-treatment assessment of certain ovarian reserve markers help identify women as expected normo/hyper/poor responders.[3],[4],[5] The most widely used tests to predict ovarian response to COS are anti Mullerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC).[6] Both have the highest accuracy for predicting poor and excessive response following COS.[3],[4] Further, AMH has the advantage of minimal intra- and inter-cycle variability.[6] A cut-off value of 0.7-1.2 ng/ml for AMH and 5-7 for AFC has been proposed as predictive of poor response.[7] Serum AMH levels of >3.5 ng/mL and AFC of >16 have been shown to be the most appropriate cut-off for prediction of hyper-response.[5],[8],[9],[10] A single centre study from North India has identified a higher cut-off value of 5.03 ng/ml for AMH in Indian women for the diagnosis of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).[11] Follicle stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) and leutinising hormone receptor (LHR) genotype, apart from age, body mass index (BMI), ethnicity, infertility diagnosis and smoking, may influence the choice of protocol, starting dose of gonadotropins and the final oocyte yield.[12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17] However, evaluation of receptor polymorphism still remains a research interest and not a common clinical practice.
A challenging area in ART is poor response to COS, which is encountered in approximately 12-20% of women undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF). The most common aetiology is poor ovarian reserve (POR) with its varied, often ill-understood underlying mechanisms.[18],[19] Introduction of Bologna criteria and subsequent POSEIDON classification of women with low prognosis are the most concentrated international efforts to bring uniformity to the definition of poor responders based on age and ovarian reserve markers.[20],[21]
A comparison of Indian and Spanish women undergoing IVF documented an advanced ovarian age in women of Indian origin compared to Spanish women.[22] Data from national database of the United Kingdom (UK) shows a reduced live birth rate in women of Indian ethnicity compared to Caucasian women despite they being younger and with higher oocyte yield.[23] Similar outcomes have been observed in Indian women in the United States of America (USA).[24] Recent evidence suggests an association between genital tuberculosis and POR in the Indian context.[25],[26]
An understanding of ovarian physiology is fundamental to optimise the COS. The pituitary gonadotrophins, follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinising hormone (LH) working in synergy regulate the folliculogenesis. FSH is involved in the initial recruitment and growth of the follicles. LH provides androgen substrate in the initial phase of the cycle and thereafter is involved in follicular growth, oocyte maturation, ovulation and corpus luteum (CL) maintenance. Cytoplasmic and nuclear maturation of the oocyte is dependent on the action of the LH surge on theca and mural granulosa cells.[27],[28],[29] It reprograms gene expression of these cells, altering the inter-cellular communication within the cumulus oocyte complex (COC) and the secretome of the oocyte and cumulus cells.[30],[31] Also, acute upregulation of the epidermal growth factor (EGF) network by LH is essential to transmit LH signals from the follicular periphery to the COC since the pre-ovulatory oocyte does not express LH receptors.[32],[33]
This narrative review is aimed at addressing the current evidence pertaining to ovarian stimulation in different subsets of women, factors which may influence outcomes, monitoring of IVF cycles, and current published experience of IVF in Indian women.
| Methodology | | |
A literature search using PubMed, Medline, Embase and Google Scholar was performed. The keywords included poor responders, hyper-responders, normal responders, in vitro fertilization, FSH, LH, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, COS, oocyte quality, ovarian reserve, embryo quality, ART, embryo transfer, oestrogen, and progesterone. Boolean search strategy was used to perform the keyword search. English language articles published from Jan 1975 – Mar 2022 were included in the review. The review did not include case reports, case series, and articles published in text books. A flow-chart is given below for the search strategy [Figure 1].
| Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in Normo-Responders | | |
An optimal response to COS cycles is considered as an oocyte yield between 10 and 15 oocytes.[1],[34] Pre-treatment with oestrogen, progesterone or oral contraceptive pills (OCP) prior to COS do not offer any benefits in normo-responders.[35],[36] A recent meta-analysis showed a significantly lower ongoing pregnancy rate with antagonist compared to long agonist protocol.[37] However, this outcome was noted only with the combination of oral hormonal pre-treatment and flexible antagonist protocol, while no such difference was evident between fixed antagonist and agonist protocol.[37] Antagonist protocol is preferred in many IVF clinics worldwide considering convenience and safety aspects.[38]
Both recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) and human menopausal gonadotropins (HMG) or highly purified HMG (HP-HMG) have been used for COS. A greater number of oocytes can be expected with rFSH compared to HMG.[39] Non-inferiority of HP-HMG to rFSH has been established in both antagonist and long agonist protocols in terms of ongoing pregnancy rates.[40],[41] Thus, the choice of gonadotrophins in normo-responders is based on the availability, cost and clinician's discretion. There exists a positive correlation between FSH dose and oocyte yield.[42] For predicted normal responders, more oocytes are retrieved with daily dose of 200–225 IU FSH compared with 100–150 IU, with no significant difference observed between 225 IU and 300 IU. However, the current evidence suggests a similar pregnancy rate in normo-responders with starting doses of 150 IU or 200IU of FSH.[43] Available evidence does not support incorporation of recombinant LH (rLH) in rFSH protocols for young normo-responders. Role of rLH supplementation in those with profound suppression of endogenous LH remains controversial. Unexpected hyporesponse in young women (POSEIDON group I) remains a challenge. A retrospective cohort study from India reported that simple increase in dose of FSH or change of protocol may achieve LBR similar to those with good prognosis.[44] A systematic review in which two RCTs specifically addressed the issue of unexpected hyporesponse in young women reported that addition of rLH may be beneficial.[45] However, the findings should be interpreted with caution considering the limitations of these studies including relatively small numbers.
| Minimal/Mild Ovarian Stimulation | | |
Mild stimulation protocols aim to achieve an oocyte yield of <8 per cycle.[46] The data regarding the efficacy of mild/minimal ovarian stimulation in normal responders is limited.[47],[48],[49] A retrospective cohort study from India reports the cost-effectiveness of mild stimulation in a well selected group of normoresponders.[50] A recent meta-analysis shows similar live birth rate (LBR) in normo-responders with conventional or mild ovarian stimulation. However, cancellation rate was two-fold in mild stimulation and with reduced oocyte and embryo numbers.[51] This may negatively affect time to pregnancy and cumulative LBR.
| Ovulation Triggering | | |
Presence of two or three leading follicles of 18 mm diameter determines the timing of ovulation trigger. The current literature addressing the optimal length of COS is sparse. It is thought that a shorter duration may allow insufficient time for oocyte maturation and endometrial development. While some authors report a decrease in success rate with prolonged duration of stimulation,[52],[53],[54] others found no association between the length of stimulation and treatment outcome.[55],[56]
The most commonly used preparation to mimic LH surge, for oocyte maturation is either recombinant or urinary human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG). Both preparations are equally effective for triggering oocyte maturation in COS.[57] A comparison of 5000 IU and 10,000 IU has not shown any difference in OHSS.[58] 4000IU and 6000 IU have shown similar oocyte maturation, with no benefit on OHSS and a possible negative impact on clinical pregnancy rate.[58],[59] The most recent meta-analysis highlights the need for luteal phase optimisation when GnRHa is used as a trigger, to maintain an equivalent LBR to that with HCG.[60] Current evidence is very limited regarding the use of dual trigger in normoresponders.[61],[62] Conversely, it is noted that a double dose of rHCG does not improve IVF outcomes.[63] We should consider fresh transfers in normo-responders as no difference has been observed in LBR when compared with elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET).[64] Any change in the current practise should be based on the emerging data.
| Normoresponders: Summary Points | | |
Gonadotropin Starting dose: 225 IU or lower (considering age and BMI).
Pituitary suppression: Long GnRH agonist or Fixed antagonist (based on availability, convenience and clinician's choice).
Ovulation trigger: HCG or GnRHa trigger (in antagonist protocol if hyper-response noted).
| Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in Poor Responders | | |
Poor response to COS is encountered in approximately 12-20% of women undergoing IVF. The most common aetiology is POR with its varied, often ill-understood underlying mechanisms.[19] It is important to note that more than 50% women with POR in first cycle of IVF will have normal response in subsequent cycles.[65] However, a persistently poor response of three or less oocytes is a predictor of reduced LBR in older women.[65] A comparative study in women undergoing IVF has shown that the ovarian age of Indian women is approximately six years older than their Spanish counterparts.[22] The interventions in management of this challenging group are directed towards improving the recruitment of a homogenous cohort of follicles leading to an increase in oocyte number and live birth.
| Pre-Stimulation Strategies | | |
Androgen supplementation is a widely practised approach to improve the outcome in poor responders. Transdermal or oral testosterone and oral dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) are the most commonly used molecules; with conflicting evidence regarding any benefit from various RCTs and meta-analyses.[66],[67],[68],[69],[70] Testosterone initiated before or during ovarian stimulation may improve IVF outcomes in poor responders.[69],[70] Duration of its usage may have therapeutic implications.[71] Currently ongoing T-TRANSPORT trial may add to the understanding of androgen supplementation. DHEA is considered as a cost-effective alternative to testosterone and 75 mg daily in micronised form is the most widely used androgen supplement in expected or proven poor responders.[68],[70] A systematic review including 17 RCTs concluded that the benefits of androgen pre-treatment were inconclusive when the studies with high risk of performance bias are removed.[72] The most recent network meta-analysis with included studies using Bologna criteria for defining poor response shows an improved clinical pregnancy rate with DHEA.[70] It is important to note that only two studies in which 82 women received DHEA were eligible for inclusion. This precluded the authors drawing conclusions on the quality of evidence.[70] A small single centre cohort study from India documents better pregnancy rates subsequent to DHEA supplementation in poor responders with previous IVF failures.[73] Another study measuring serum and follicular fluid concentrations of DHEA in poor and hyper-responders suggests an important role for DHEA in oocyte activation. Rectification of both low and high values may have a positive impact on embryo parameters and LBR.[74]
Current evidence is inconclusive on the role of growth hormone supplementation in improving LBR in poor responders.[70],[76],[77],[78] Limited evidence suggests its beneficial role in long agonist protocol.[75] A single study shows possible benefit of Co-enzyme Q10 (CoQ10) in poor responders.[70],[79]
RCTs including studies with uniform definition of poor response and low risk of bias are necessary to define the place of the above supplements in management of poor responders. Cost of these additions and current lack of conclusive evidence to support their use routinely in clinical practice should be considered prior to their incorporation in routine clinical practice.[80]
| Steroid Pre-treatment | | |
Progestins, OCPs and oestradiol are routinely used prior to antagonist cycles. A single study comparing antagonist cycles with and without OCP pre-treatment to GnRHa cycles in low responders showed a lower number of oocytes and embryos in untreated antagonist group compared to the other two groups. However, live birth rate was similar in all the three groups.[81]
| Stimulation Protocols | | |
Long agonist, short agonist and antagonist protocols are all utilised in IVF for poor responders. Long agonist and antagonist protocols yield similar pregnancy rates.[37] Conventional protocols in poor responders involve a higher starting dose of FSH compared to normal responders. Addition of rLH from mid cycle onwards to rFSH is a common clinical practice in poor responders to improve LBR despite lack of conclusive evidence in its support.[82],[83] The ESPART trial did not show any advantage to adding rLH to rFSH in poor responders.[84] Use of urinary HCG instead of rLH appears to be a promising approach in improving clinical pregnancy rates.[85] A retrospective study suggests that early initiation of HMG with rFSH is associated with an improved LBR compared to mid-follicular HMG or rFSH alone.[86] However, this observation needs to be validated through appropriately designed RCTs.
An alternative approach to conventional stimulation is the use of mild stimulation or modified natural protocols. A low per cycle pregnancy rate, high cancellation, increased time interval to pregnancy and lack of available evidence on cumulative pregnancy rate should all be considered while choosing this option.[87] Protocols incorporating clomiphene and letrozole may be associated with low oocyte yield, high cancellation rate[88] and the lowest pregnancy rate.[70] Dual stimulation offers an attractive opportunity of increasing the number of oocytes within the span of an ovarian cycle in the context of fertility preservation. However, such an approach in the management of poor responders should be used cautiously considering the financial implications and the absence of supporting evidence.[89]
| Poor Responders: Summary Points | | |
Gonadotropin Starting dose: Usually 300 IU (age, BMI and previous response may influence the choice of starting dose).
Pituitary suppression: Fixed antagonist or long agonist.
Ovulation trigger: HCG.
Pre-stimulation strategies: Use of testosterone, DHEA, growth hormone and CoQ-10 all lack high quality evidence for their use in routine clinical practice.
| Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in Hyper-Responders | | |
Diagnosis of PCOS, a high AMH or AFC values, a previous high response or high number of retrieved oocytes (>15 oocytes) are considered as indicators of a high response. Choice of COS protocol, dose of stimulant, ovulation trigger will influence the occurrence of OHSS in hyper-responders.
| Pre-Stimulation Strategies | | |
Pre-stimulation steroid and metformin administration may have important impact on the course of ovarian stimulation in hyper-responders. Use of metformin before and during ART is a widely used intervention in women with PCOS. The most recent meta-analysis suggests a reduction in OHSS and a non-significant reduction in miscarriages. While no impact on LBR was noted in long agonist protocol, LBR was lower in the antagonist protocol in comparison to a placebo. The limitations were the low quality of evidence and no data on cumulative livebirth.[90]
Pre-treatment with OCP is a common practice in expected or proven hyper-responders to achieve pituitary suppression without increasing the risk of OHSS. Pre-treatment with OCP in antagonist cycles across the entire spectrum of ovarian response is considered to reduce pregnancy rate, LBR and miscarriages.[35] However, a retrospective study in women with PCOS suggests an improved IVF and pregnancy outcomes following pre-treatment with COCP for three months or longer.[91] This assumption needs further exploration before adopting as a standard clinical practice.
| Ovarian Stimulation in Hyper- Responders | | |
Ovarian response to urinary HMG and recombinant FSH exhibit certain differences during ovarian stimulation: rFSH results in a larger number of small and intermediate follicles, more mature oocytes, and in women with basal LH <1 IU/L, very low E2 levels with poor folliculogenesis. Results of a single RCT show that HP-HMG results in higher E2 levels but a lesser incidence of OHSS and miscarriage rate in comparison to rFSH and a similar pregnancy rate.[92] Further, a decision-tree model evaluating the financial impact of therapy per live birth after first embryo transfer in the same patient population suggests a reduced cost with HP-HMG in comparison to rFSH.[93] These reported benefits of efficacy and safety need validation through further RCTs.
A reduced starting dose of FSH is both cost-effective and safe in women expected to be hyper-responders.[94] An elective use of antagonist protocol is both effective and safe in hyper-responders.[5] A prospective study from India in a cohort of women with PCOS shows an increased risk of OHSS with long GnRH agonist protocol compared to antagonist protocol.[95] Final trigger for oocyte maturation in hyper-responders is best decided based on the ovarian response.[96] Coasting,[97] reduced dose of HCG,[58] GnRHa trigger[98] and elective embryo cryopreservation[99] have all been used in an attempt to reduce the incidence of OHSS in this subgroup of women. Prediction of OHSS based on the number of follicles and choosing the appropriate strategy for further management may help optimise the outcomes.[100] Though a 'freeze all' strategy remains the standard approach, an intensive luteal phase support with the addition of oestradiol or a small bolus of HCG to the standard progesterone therapy is necessary if fresh cycle transfer is considered following GnRHa trigger.[101]
| Hyper-Responders: Summary Points | | |
Gonadotropin Starting Dose: 150 IU or lower (based on BMI, AMH/AFC value and previous response).
Pituitary suppression: Antagonist (most widely used - fixed or flexible multiple dose).
Ovulation trigger: GnRHa (HCG if ovarian response is ≤ normal).
Pre-stimulation strategies: ? Metformin for long agonist GnRHa protocol.
| The Efficacy of Stimulation Protocols to Improve Oocyte and Embryo Quality | | |
The oocyte quality is one of the key parameters determining the embryo quality and is a good predictor of IVF outcome. Bovine and murine studies have shown that ovarian stimulation may negatively impact the fertilization and embryo development, impair implantation and increase chromosomal abnormalities.[102],[103] However, an analysis of trophectoderm biopsies in a large cohort has shown that the intensity of stimulation does not influence the ploidy status.[104] In a large cohort study, a strong association is reported between the number of oocytes and live birth rate; with the best chance of a live birth at 15 oocytes.[105]
While a study from India suggested that antagonist protocols may be associated with better perifollicular vascularity and better quality embryos, it included small numbers and did not report on LBR.[106] A systematic review of 73 RCTs has not shown any difference in the LBR when antagonist or agonist was used.[107] No difference is noted in embryo morphokinetics within individuals undergoing IVF when switched between antagonist and agonist protocols.[108]
It is plausible that gonadotropin preparations used in COS may have an impact on oocyte quality.[109] However, similar pregnancy rates have been reported while comparing rFSH and HP-HMG in the MERIT trial.[40] An RCT comparing urinary FSH (hFSH) and rFSH did not reveal any difference in the fertilization rate or implantation rate.[110] A comparison of HMG, hFSH, rFSH, and sequential hFSH/rFSH did not reveal any difference in the oocyte numbers or embryo quality amongst the different groups in a RCT.[111] Even supraphysiological E2 does not appear to have any negative impact on oocyte quality.[112] Addition of rLH to rFSH in older women has not shown to improve clinical outcomes.[113],[114]
| Agonists versus Antagonists in In vitro Fertilisation | | |
GnRH analogues play an important role in COS to prevent premature rise in LH and premature ovulation as evident from the above discussion. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that in normo-responders GnRH agonist protocols result in higher pregnancy.[37] Within this population, antagonist treatment prevents one case of OHSS in 40 patients but results in one less ongoing pregnancy out of every 28 women treated. In women with PCOS and potential high responders, GnRH antagonists do not seem to compromise ongoing pregnancy rates and are associated with less OHSS and therefore should be considered as standard treatment.[37] In addition, they offer the flexibility of using GnRHa for triggering to minimise the risk of OHSS. While antagonist protocols are widely used in the poor responders, long agonist protocol may be equally effective.[115]
| Does Luteinising Hormone Activity Improve the Quality of Oocyte and Embryo? | | |
Considering the vital role LH plays in folliculogenesis, the current trend of conducting COS in an LH-depleted environment (pituitary suppression and COS with recombinant FSH) has been questioned.[116] The role of exogenous LH in COS remains controversial since very low concentration of endogenous LH are sufficient to sustain adequate follicular growth and development.[117] However, profoundly suppressed LH may compromise the quality of oocytes and thereby ART outcome. A negative effect on the ovarian response and follicular endocrine profile in LH depleted cycles has been reported.[118],[119] A reduction of apoptosis with improved chromatin quality of cumulus cells involved in oocyte maturation in women treated with r-LH has been observed.[120] A review and meta-analysis of studies comparing different gonadotrophins concluded that FSH alone resulted in higher oocyte number, HMG improved the number of mature oocytes and embryos and increased implantation rate, while rLH addition or use of HMG lead to higher pregnancy rate in GnRH agonist cycles.[121] A large retrospective study of more than 4000 patients demonstrated the beneficial effect of LH in low prognosis patients.[122] LH may improve the oocyte quality by leading to activation of ERK1/2 and AKT-pathway and a final proliferative and anti-apoptotic signal.[123]
The ultimate answer to this debate may lie in pharmacogenetics which demonstrates the effect of individual genetic variability.[124] FSH and LH receptor polymorphisms have been implicated in infertility as well as response to COS.[125] An increase in FSH requirement for COS has been demonstrated in women having an LH or AMH polymorphism.[126],[127],[128] An association between LHCGR N312S polymorphism and a higher requirement for rLH in Indian women homozygous and heterozygous for serine was noted in a cross-sectional study.[129] It is to be seen whether customised COS based on the patient's genome would possibly provide the final answer on the need for LH in COS.
| Selective and Elective Freeze policy | | |
Transfer of supernumerary cryopreserved embryos generated as a result of COS in IVF has evolved as an important strategy to enhance cumulative pregnancy rates (CPR) in ART. A shift in cryopreservation technique from slow freezing to vitrification has led to enhanced embryo survival rates.[130],[131] and better reproductive outcomes in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles.[132],[133],[134] Consequently, a global upsurge in FET cycles of approximately 15-40% has been observed.[135],[136],[137]
High steroid levels generated during COS initiate early endometrial maturation, altering the 'window of implantation'(WOI)[138],[139] leading to a negative impact on embryo implantation.[140] The improved pregnancy rate (PR) in FET cycles is presumed to be a result of better embryo – endometrial synchrony.[132] Rise in pre-ovulatory progesterone level in stimulated cycles is also detrimental to implantation.[141] A significantly reduced risk of ectopic pregnancy, preterm birth, low birthweight and small for gestational age babies has been reported in FET pregnancies.[142]
An elective freezing or a 'freeze all strategy' implies cryopreservation of all embryos generated in IVF with subsequent FET in a natural or hormone replacement cycle. Selective freezing refers to freezing of supernumerary embryos following a fresh embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos in specific clinical scenario when an unexpected intra-uterine pathology such as endometrial fluid, polyps or thin endometrium was encountered during COS; rise in pre-ovulatory progesterone level in stimulated cycles or unexpected hyper-response. Elective freezing was initially proposed as an OHSS risk reduction strategy in hyper-responders,[143] in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) and fertility preservation. Its use is extended to patients with recurrent implantation failure to improve embryo-endometrial synchrony at ET.[140]
One of the earliest systematic reviews and meta-analysis, comparing reproductive outcomes of fresh or elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET) proposed that eFET should be universally advocated because it resulted in an approximate 30% increase in CPR and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR).[144] Two of the three trials included in this review were on high responder patients whilst one included normal responders. Many other studies followed reporting higher PRs with eFET; most of them included PCOS patients.[145],[146],[147] However, RCTs done in patient specific groups reveal that eFET does not improve results across the spectrum. An RCT in non-PCOS patients found no advantage of eFET over fresh transfer.[148] SART registry data of 82935 patients revealed that CPR and LBRs were significantly higher only in eFET in high responders (>15 oocytes recovered).[149] In normal (6-14 oocytes) and poor responders (<6 oocytes) on the other hand, CPR and LBRs were significantly higher in fresh ET cycles (P < 0.001). Only data of first IVF cycles and ET done within one year were used for analysis.[144] A population based study also reported significantly lower cumulative LBR in normal and sub-optimal responders with eFET.[147] In high responders, cumulative LBR was similar in fresh and eFET. A Cochrane meta-analysis of 2021 concluded that cumulative LBR between eFET and fresh ET are similar with a moderate quality of evidence. However, the meta-analysis was unable to draw any conclusions on the impact of 'freeze all' on the risk of miscarriages, multiple pregnancies and small-for-gestational age.[99]
Elective freezing has other associated disadvantages. There is an inherent risk of complete or partial degeneration of embryos during the freeze thaw process. Added to that there is a delay in cycle completion leading to increased emotional and financial burden. A high rate of treatment discontinuation has also been observed in normal and suboptimal responders (24.4% and 34.1%, respectively)[147] and an increase in pregnancy induced hypertension and large for gestational age babies has been reported.[142] In addition, the luteal support (LPS) in FET cycles may need an individualised approach to achieve the best possible outcomes rather than a standard LPS for all.[150],[151]
| Monitoring of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Cycles | | |
This section provides a brief overview of the monitoring of COS cycles during IVF. Patient comfort, cost implications and the impact on outcome influence the choice of modality. Transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) forms the mainstay of monitoring ovarian response. Ultrasound assessment of follicular growth was first introduced in 1978 when a linear relationship between follicle size and circulating E2 levels was reported.[152] There is no evidence that cycle monitoring by TVS alone is any less effective than combined monitoring by transvaginal and oestradiol assay.[153] Till date there is no consensus regarding the optimal number of measurements for each follicle or how best they are performed; but a single measurement is less reliable than two or three measures.[154] In addition to measuring the number and the rate of growth of follicles and the endometrial thickness, a TVS may be used to evaluate follicular and endometrial blood flow.
Baseline ultrasonography (USG) is utilised to confirm that the follicular size is <10 mm, there is absence of ovarian cyst, endometrial thickness <6 mm [Figure 2]. Rate of growth of endometrium is slow during the first few days, but reaches 1-2 mm/day around 2-3 days before ovulation. Ideal thickness required varies between 8-14 mm.[155] Endometrial thickness of less than 7 mm on the day of HCG is associated with poor implantation.
Follicles with more than 75% of their surface perfused, ovarian stromal peak systolic velocity (PSV) >10 cm/s and resistance index (RI) <0.4 – 0.48 usually contain oocytes of satisfactory quality. Rising PSV with steady low RI suggests imminent rupture.[156] Ultrasound parameters evaluated to assess endometrial receptivity are endometrial thickness, endometrial pattern, endometrial volume, doppler study of uterine arteries and endometrial blood flow. Endometrial thickness and pattern have low positive predictive value and specificity for ART outcome.[157],[158] A volume of 2.0–2.5 ml on 3D ultrasound is considered as a good predictor of pregnancy outcome.[159],[160] However, it is ineffective for predicting pregnancy in an unselected population of women undergoing ART.[161]
An endocrine evaluation has an important role to identify certain nuances of ovarian response. Baseline assessment confirms ovarian quiescence when LH is ≤4 IU/L, oestradiol (E2) levels is <50 pg/ml and progesterone level <1.5 ng/ml following pituitary downregulation with long or ultralong agonist protocol. However, such measurements have limited role in an antagonist protocol and a TVS usually suffices. Serial E2 measurement may provide additional information in predicting OHSS or poor response. The dose of gonadotropin should not be changed as long as serial E2 rise is between 50 and 100% every other day.[162] E2 levels during COS have long been used to predict the risk of OHSS.[163]
Premature progesterone elevation (PE) in the late follicular phase is identified by the serum progesterone levels of >1.5 ng/ml on the day of HCG. PE can result in advanced endometrial maturation, leading to dyssynchronous glandular and stromal differentiation in the luteal phase.[164] PE may also be associated with altered gene expression.[165] Despite lack of consensus, it is generally accepted that PE adversely affects the pregnancy rate and fresh embryo transfer is avoided.[166] Progesterone levels on the day of embryo transfer may help in defining the most optimal strategy for LPS.[167]
| Conclusions | | |
The review provides an overview of ovarian stimulation for IVF and the emerging evidence in the recent years. It also looks at the evidence available on ovarian reserve and ovarian stimulation in Indian women. An apparently increasing incidence of poor response in IVF is a frustrating situation for infertile couples and clinicians alike. Lack of definitive benefits, possible side effects of various interventions and their impact on LBR should be considered while offering them to these women.
The challenges in hyper-responders are the need for cancelation due to hyper-response and OHSS, the most serious iatrogenic complication of IVF. Safe and effective outcome can be achieved by using antagonist protocols, individualised dosing of gonadotropin, right choice of trigger and decision regarding segmented cycles. Both endocrine and ultrasound monitoring of IVF cycles contribute to improve the safety and efficacy of treatment and a prudent choice of the modality is needed as demanded by the clinical scenario. Currently an all freeze strategy cannot be advised to an unselected patient population as it is still not certain that it can improve clinical efficacy.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
Ferring organised a meeting of all authors and facilitated discussion and provided the assistance of a medical writing team whose role was limited to aiding the search strategy and creating the flow chart for search strategy.
PRJ: Is the current Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences. She has not received any monetary compensation for the article. She has been a faculty for symposiums organised by Ferring in the past. She has not had any role in the peer review/editorial process/decision making about the manuscript.
NM: Has not received any monetary compensation for the article. She has received honorarium as a faculty from Ferring in the past.
JS: He has not received any monetary support from Ferring for the writing up of this manuscript.
MMP: Has been a part of Ferring C-Create programs and was invited to speak for Abbott scientific sessions. She has not received any monetary support from Ferring for the writing up of this manuscript.
RG: Has been compensated by Ferring India, Merck and Abott India in the last year for various speaker/KOL assignments. He has not received any monetary support from Ferring for the writing up of this manuscript.
VSR: She has received honorarium from Ferring Pharmaceutical Pvt Ltd as an expert in Embryology towards preparing/updating & being a member of Virtual 'C-CREATE Scientific Committee meeting, but not received any funds for this particular project.
MG: Never received any monetary support or honorarium from Ferring for writing up this Manuscript. Has been part of Ferring's C-Create teaching programs and part of invited faculty in educational programs conducted by Abbott, Astra Zeneca and Shield Pharma companies.
FIS: Has received compensation from Ferring (but not for this article) as part of Ferring Speaker Bureau and investigator.
Data availability statement
Not applicable.
| References | | |
| 1. | Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod 2016;31:370-6.  |
| 2. | Sunkara SK, Khalaf Y, Maheshwari A, Seed P, Coomarasamy A. Association between response to ovarian stimulation and miscarriage following IVF: An analysis of 124 351 IVF pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1218-24. |
| 3. | Broer SL, Dólleman M, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt PM, et al. Prediction of an excessive response in in vitro fertilization from patient characteristics and ovarian reserve tests and comparison in subgroups: An individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013;100:420- 9.e7. |
| 4. | Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, et al. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: An individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:26-36. |
| 5. | La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: From theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:124-40. |
| 6. | Iliodromiti S, Anderson RA, Nelson SM. Technical and performance characteristics of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count as biomarkers of ovarian response. Hum Reprod Update 2015;21:698-710. |
| 7. | Al-Azemi M, Killick SR, Duffy S, Pye C, Refaat B, Hill N, et al. Multi-marker assessment of ovarian reserve predicts oocyte yield after ovulation induction. Hum Reprod 2011;26:414-22. |
| 8. | Khader A, Lloyd SM, McConnachie A, Fleming R, Grisendi V, La Marca A, et al. External validation of anti-Müllerian hormone based prediction of live birth in assisted conception. J Ovarian Res 2013;6:3. |
| 9. | Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: Anti-Müllerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2-6 mm). J Assist Reprod Genet 2009;26:319-25. |
| 10. | Jirge PR, Iliodromiti S, Chougule SM, Yelburga S, Shah R, Nelson S. Clinical utility of the novel automated AMH assay as a diagnostic test for PCOS in women of Indian origin. Hum Reprod 2018;32:454-4. |
| 11. | Mahajan N, Kaur J. Establishing an anti-müllerian hormone cutoff for diagnosis of polycystic ovarian syndrome in women of reproductive age-bearing Indian ethnicity using the automated anti-müllerian hormone assay. J Hum Reprod Sci 2019;12:104-13. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 12. | Papaleo E, Zaffagnini S, Munaretto M, Vanni VS, Rebonato G, Grisendi V, et al. Clinical application of a nomogram based on age, serum FSH and AMH to select the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles: A retrospective two-centres study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;207:94-9. |
| 13. | Salih Joelsson L, Elenis E, Wanggren K, Berglund A, Iliadou AN, Cesta CE, et al. Investigating the effect of lifestyle risk factors upon number of aspirated and mature oocytes in in vitro fertilization cycles: Interaction with antral follicle count. PLoS One 2019;14:e0221015. |
| 14. | Aly J, Plowden TC, Christy AY. Factors contributing to persistent disparate outcomes of in vitro fertilization treatment. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2021;33:335-42. |
| 15. | Kolanska K, Cohen J, Bendifallah S, Selleret L, Antoine JM, Chabbert-Buffet N, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in women with endometriosis-associated infertility: GnRH-agonist versus GnRH-antagonist. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2017;46:681-6. |
| 16. | Ganesh V, Venkatesan V, Koshy T, Reddy SN, Muthumuthiah S, Paul SF. Association of estrogen, progesterone and follicle stimulating hormone receptor polymorphisms with in vitro fertilization outcomes. Syst Biol Reprod Med 2018;64:260-5. |
| 17. | Achrekar SK, Modi DN, Desai SK, Mangoli VS, Mangoli RV, Mahale SD. Follicle-stimulating hormone receptor polymorphism (Thr307Ala) is associated with variable ovarian response and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in Indian women. Fertil Steril 2009;91:432-9. |
| 18. | Lledo B, Ortiz JA, Llacer J, Bernabeu R. Pharmacogenetics of ovarian response. Pharmacogenomics 2014;15:885-93. |
| 19. | |
| 20. | Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: The Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1616-24. |
| 21. | Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number); Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: From a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1452-3. |
| 22. | Iglesias C, Banker M, Mahajan N, Herrero L, Meseguer M, Garcia-Velasco JA. Ethnicity as a determinant of ovarian reserve: Differences in ovarian aging between Spanish and Indian women. Fertil Steril 2014;102:244-9. |
| 23. | Maalouf W, Maalouf W, Campbell B, Jayaprakasan K. Effect of ethnicity on live birth rates after in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment: Analysis of UK national database. BJOG 2017;124:904-10. |
| 24. | Shahine LK, Lamb JD, Lathi RB, Milki AA, Langen E, Westphal LM. Poor prognosis with in vitro fertilization in Indian women compared to Caucasian women despite similar embryo quality. PLoS One 2009;4:e7599. |
| 25. | Malhotra N, Sharma V, Bahadur A, Sharma JB, Roy KK, Kumar S. The effect of tuberculosis on ovarian reserve among women undergoing IVF in India. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012;117:40-4. |
| 26. | Jirge PR, Chougule SM, Keni A, Kumar S, Modi D. Latent genital tuberculosis adversely affects the ovarian reserve in infertile women. Hum Reprod 2018;33:1262-9. |
| 27. | Cha KY, Chian RC. Maturation in vitro of immature human oocytes for clinical use. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4:103-20. |
| 28. | Moor RM, Dai Y, Lee C, Fulka J Jr. Oocyte maturation and embryonic failure. Hum Reprod Update 1998;4:223-36. |
| 29. | Trounson A, Anderiesz C, Jones G. Maturation of human oocytes in vitro and their developmental competence. Reproduction 2001;121:51-75. |
| 30. | Albertini DF, Combelles CM, Benecchi E, Carabatsos MJ. Cellular basis for paracrine regulation of ovarian follicle development. Reproduction 2001;121:647-53. |
| 31. | Ritter LJ, Sugimura S, Gilchrist RB. Oocyte induction of EGF responsiveness in somatic cells is associated with the acquisition of porcine oocyte developmental competence. Endocrinology 2015;156:2299-312. |
| 32. | Park JY, Su YQ, Ariga M, Law E, Jin SL, Conti M. EGF-like growth factors as mediators of LH action in the ovulatory follicle. Science 2004;303:682-4. |
| 33. | Richani D, Gilchrist RB. The epidermal growth factor network: Role in oocyte growth, maturation and developmental competence. Hum Reprod Update 2018;24:1-14. |
| 34. | Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Macklon NS, Heijnen EM, Baart EB, Hohmann FP, et al. The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: A meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:5-12. |
| 35. | Farquhar C, Rombauts L, Kremer JA, Lethaby A, Ayeleke RO. Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;5:CD006109. |
| 36. | Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad E, Bakhtiari Ghaleh F, Eslami B, Haghollahi F, Bagheri M, Masoumi M. Comparison of pre-treatment with OCPs or estradiol valerate vs. no pre-treatment prior to GnRH antagonist used for IVF cycles: An RCT. Int J Reprod Biomed 2018;16:535-40. |
| 37. | Lambalk CB, Banga FR, Huirne JA, Toftager M, Pinborg A, Homburg R, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: A systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Hum Reprod Update 2017;23:560-79. |
| 38. | Ovarian Stimulation TEGGO; Bosch E, Broer S, Griesinger G, Grynberg M, Humaidan P, et al. ESHRE guideline: Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI †. Hum Reprod Open 2020;2020:hoaa009. |
| 39. | Levi Setti PE, Alviggi C, Colombo GL, Pisanelli C, Ripellino C, Longobardi S, et al. Human recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) compared to urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction: A literature review and cost evaluation. J Endocrinol Invest 2015;38:497-503. |
| 40. | Andersen N, Devroey P, Arce JC, for the MERIT Group. Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: A randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2006;21: 3217-27. |
| 41. | Devroey P, Pellicer A, Nyboe Andersen A, Arce JC; Menopur in GnRH Antagonist Cycles with Single Embryo Transfer Trial Group. A randomized assessor-blind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2012;97:561-71. |
| 42. | Lensen SF, Wilkinson J, Leijdekkers JA, La Marca A, Mol BW, Marjoribanks J, et al. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;2:CD012693. |
| 43. | Sterrenburg MD, Veltman-Verhulst SM, Eijkemans MJ, Hughes EG, Macklon NS, Broekmans FJ, et al. Clinical outcomes in relation to the daily dose of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization in presumed normal responders younger than 39 years: A meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:184-96. |
| 44. | Chinta P, Antonisamy B, Mangalaraj AM, Kunjummen AT, Kamath MS. POSEIDON classification and the proposed treatment options for groups 1 and 2: Time to revisit? A retrospective analysis of 1425 ART cycles. Hum Reprod Open 2021;2021:hoaa070. |
| 45. | Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, Andersen CY, Bosch E, Bühler K, et al. Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in assisted reproductive technology: A systematic review. Fertil Steril 2018;109:644-64. |
| 46. | Fauser BC, Nargund G, Andersen AN, Norman R, Tarlatzis B, Boivin J, et al. Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: 10 years later. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2678-84. |
| 47. | Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad DH. A case-control pilot study of low-intensity IVF in good-prognosis patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;24:396-402. |
| 48. | Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Devroey P. Mild ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate launch is a realistic option for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2015;104:333-8. |
| 49. | Mukherjee S, Sharma S, Chakravarty BN. Letrozole in a low-cost in vitro fertilization protocol in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles for male factor infertility: A randomized controlled trial. J Hum Reprod Sci 2012;5:170-4. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 50. | Aleyamma TK, Kamath MS, Muthukumar K, Mangalaraj AM, George K. Affordable ART: A different perspective. Hum Reprod 2011;26:3312-8. |
| 51. | Datta AK, Maheshwari A, Felix N, Campbell S, Nargund G. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2021;27:229-53. |
| 52. | Chuang M, Zapantis A, Taylor M, Jindal SK, Neal-Perry GS, Lieman HJ, et al. Prolonged gonadotropin stimulation is associated with decreased ART success. J Assist Reprod Genet 2010;27:711-7. |
| 53. | Ryan A, Wang S, Alvero R, Polotsky AJ. Prolonged gonadotropin stimulation for assisted reproductive technology cycles is associated with decreased pregnancy rates for all women except for women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014;31:837-42. |
| 54. | Pereira N, Hobeika E, Hutchinson AP, Lekovich J, Elias R, Rosenwaks Z. Prolonged gonadotropin stimulation in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles and its impact on pregnancy outcomes. Fertil Steril 2015;104:e328-9. |
| 55. | Royster GD, Retzloff MG, Robinson RD, King JA, Propst AM. Effect of length of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist on in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates. J Reprod Med 2012;57:415-20. |
| 56. | Bar-Hava I, Yoeli R, Yulzari-Roll V, Ashkenazi J, Shalev J, Orvieto R. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: Does prolonged stimulation justify cancellation of in vitro fertilization cycles? Gynecol Endocrinol 2005;21:232-4. |
| 57. | Youssef MA, Abou-Setta AM, Lam WS. Recombinant versus urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin for final oocyte maturation triggering in IVF and ICSI cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;4:CD003719. |
| 58. | Lin H, Wang W, Li Y, Chen X, Yang D, Zhang Q. Triggering final oocyte maturation with reduced doses of hCG in IVF/ICSI: A prospective, randomized and controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;159:143-7. |
| 59. | Tsoumpou I, Muglu J, Gelbaya TA, Nardo LG. Symposium: Update on prediction and management of OHSS. Optimal dose of HCG for final oocyte maturation in IVF cycles: Absence of evidence? Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:52-8. |
| 60. | Haahr T, Roque M, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. GnRH agonist trigger and LH activity luteal phase support versus hCG trigger and conventional luteal phase support in fresh embryo transfer IVF/ICSI cycles – A systematic PRISMA review and meta-analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2017;8:116. |
| 61. | Haas J, Bassil R, Samara N, Zilberberg E, Mehta C, Orvieto R, et al. GnRH agonist and hCG (dual trigger) versus hCG trigger for final follicular maturation: A double-blinded, randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod 2020;35:1648-54. |
| 62. | Gao F, Wang Y, Fu M, Zhang Q, Ren Y, Shen H, et al. Effect of a “dual trigger” using a GnRH agonist and hCG on the cumulative live-birth rate for normal responders in GnRH-antagonist cycles. Front Med (Lausanne) 2021;8:683210. |
| 63. | Singh N, Girish B, Malhotra N, Mahey R, Perumal V. Does double dose of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin for final follicular maturation in in vitro fertilization cycles improve oocyte quality: A prospective randomized study. J Hum Reprod Sci 2019;12:310-5. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 64. | Roque M, Haahr T, Geber S, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. Fresh versus elective frozen embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 2019;25:2-14. |
| 65. | Cohen Y, Tannus S, Alzawawi N, Son WY, Dahan M, Buckett W. Poor ovarian response as a predictor for live birth in older women undergoing IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2018;36:435-41. |
| 66. | Sunkara SK, Pundir J, Khalaf Y. Effect of androgen supplementation or modulation on ovarian stimulation outcome in poor responders: A meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22:545-55. |
| 67. | Noventa M, Vitagliano A, Andrisani A, Blaganje M, Viganò P, Papaelo E, et al. Testosterone therapy for women with poor ovarian response undergoing IVF: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Assist Reprod Genet 2019;36:673-83. |
| 68. | Li J, Yuan H, Chen Y, Wu H, Wu H, Li L. A meta-analysis of dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation among women with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015;131:240-5. |
| 69. | Narkwichean A, Maalouf W, Baumgarten M, Polanski L, Raine-Fenning N, Campbell B, et al. Efficacy of Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) to overcome the effect of ovarian ageing (DITTO): A proof of principle double blinded randomized placebo controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017;218:39-48. |
| 70. | Zhang Y, Zhang C, Shu J, Guo J, Chang HM, Leung PC, et al. Adjuvant treatment strategies in ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2020;26:247-63. |
| 71. | Kim CH, Ahn JW, Moon JW, Kim SH, Chae HD, Kang BM. Ovarian features after 2 weeks, 3 weeks and 4 weeks transdermal testosterone gel treatment and their associated effect on IVF outcomes in poor responders. Dev Reprod 2014;18:145-52. |
| 72. | Nagels HE, Rishworth JR, Siristatidis CS, Kroon B. Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;11:CD009749. |
| 73. | Jirge PR, Chougule SM, Gavali VG, Bhomkar DA. Impact of dehydroepiandrosterone on clinical outcome in poor responders: A pilot study in women undergoing in vitro fertilization, using bologna criteria. J Hum Reprod Sci 2014;7:175-80. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 74. | Chimote BN, Chimote NM. Dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEAS) concentrations stringently regulate fertilisation, embryo development and IVF outcomes: Are we looking at a potentially compelling 'oocyte-related factor' in oocyte activation? J Assist Reprod Genet 2021;38:193-202. |
| 75. | Dakhly DM, Bassiouny YA, Bayoumi YA, Hassan MA, Gouda HM, Hassan AA. The addition of growth hormone adjuvant therapy to the long down regulation protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: Randomized control trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;228:161-5. |
| 76. | Dunne C, Seethram K, Roberts J. Growth hormone supplementation in the luteal phase before microdose GnRH agonist flare protocol for in vitro fertilization. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37:810-5. |
| 77. | Bassiouny YA, Dakhly DM, Bayoumi YA, Hashish NM. Does the addition of growth hormone to the in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection antagonist protocol improve outcomes in poor responders? A randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2016;105:697-702. |
| 78. | Cozzolino M, Cecchino GN, Troiano G, Romanelli C. Growth hormone cotreatment for poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2020;114:97-109. |
| 79. | Xu Y, Nisenblat V, Lu C, Li R, Qiao J, Zhen X, et al. Pretreatment with coenzyme Q10 improves ovarian response and embryo quality in low-prognosis young women with decreased ovarian reserve: A randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2018;16:29. |
| 80. | Kamath MS, Mascarenhas M, Franik S, Liu E, Sunkara SK. Clinical adjuncts in in vitro fertilization: A growing list. Fertil Steril 2019;112:978-86. |
| 81. | Kim CH, Jeon GH, Cheon YP, Jeon I, Kim SH, Chae HD, et al. Comparison of GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive pill pretreatment and GnRH agonist low-dose long protocol in low responders undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1758-60. |
| 82. | Bosdou JK, Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Toulis KA, Goulis DG, Zepiridis L, et al. The use of androgens or androgen-modulating agents in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:127-45. |
| 83. | Fan W, Li S, Chen Q, Huang Z, Ma Q, Wang Y. Recombinant Luteinizing Hormone supplementation in poor responders undergoing IVF: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013;29:278-84. |
| 84. | Humaidan P, Chin W, Rogoff D, D'Hooghe T, Longobardi S, Hubbard J, et al. Efficacy and safety of follitropin alfa/lutropin alfa in ART: A randomized controlled trial in poor ovarian responders. Hum Reprod 2017;32:544-5. |
| 85. | Mak SM, Wong WY, Chung HS, Chung PW, Kong GW, Li TC, et al. Effect of mid-follicular phase recombinant LH versus urinary HCG supplementation in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF – A prospective double-blinded randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online 2017;34:258-66. |
| 86. | Berker B, Şükür YE, Özdemir EÜ, Özmen B, Sönmezer M, Atabekoğlu CS, et al. Human menopausal gonadotropin commenced on early follicular period increases live birth rates in POSEIDON Group 3 and 4 poor responders. Reprod Sci 2021;28:488-94. |
| 87. | Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine Electronic address: [email protected] Comparison of pregnancy rates for poor responders using IVF with mild ovarian stimulation versus conventional IVF: A guideline. Fertil Steril 2018;109:993-9. |
| 88. | Kamath MS, Maheshwari A, Bhattacharya S, Lor KY, Gibreel A. Oral medications including clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;11:CD008528. |
| 89. | Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Trabucco E, Vallefuoco R, Buffo L, Dusi L, et al. Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) to maximize the number of oocytes retrieved from poor prognosis patients: A multicenter experience and SWOT analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2018;9:317. |
| 90. | Tso LO, Costello MF, Albuquerque LE, Andriolo RB, Macedo CR. Metformin treatment before and during IVF or ICSI in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;12:CD006105. |
| 91. | Pan JX, Liu Y, Ke ZH, Zhou CL, Meng Q, Ding GL, et al. Successive and cyclic oral contraceptive pill pretreatment improves IVF/ICSI outcomes of PCOS patients and ameliorates hyperandrogenism and antral follicle excess. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015;31:332-6. |
| 92. | Witz CA, Daftary GS, Doody KJ, Park JK, Seifu Y, Yankov VI, et al. Menopur in GnRH antagonist cycles with single embryo transfer – High responder (MEGASET-HR) Trial Group. Randomized, assessor-blinded trial comparing highly purified human menotropin and recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in high responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2020;114:321-30. |
| 93. | Robins JC, Khair AF, Widra EA, Alper MM, Nelson WW, Foster ED, et al. Economic evaluation of highly purified human menotropin or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone for controlled ovarian stimulation in high-responder patients: Analysis of the Menopur in Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonist Single Embryo Transfer-High Responder (MEGASET-HR) trial. F S Rep 2020;1:257-63. |
| 94. | van Tilborg TC, Oudshoorn SC, Eijkemans MJ, Mochtar MH, van Golde RJ, Hoek A, et al. Individualized FSH dosing based on ovarian reserve testing in women starting IVF/ICSI: A multicentre trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Hum Reprod 2017;32:2485-95. |
| 95. | Kaur H, Krishna D, Shetty N, Krishnan S, Srinivas M, Rao KA. A prospective study of GnRH long agonist versus flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in PCOS: Indian experience. J Hum Reprod Sci 2012;5:181-6. [Full text] |
| 96. | Gera PS, Tatpati LL, Allemand MC, Wentworth MA, Coddington CC. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: Steps to maximize success and minimize effect for assisted reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril 2010;94:173-8. |
| 97. | Kovács P, Mátyás S, Kaali SG. Effect of coasting on cycle outcome during in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in hyper-responders. Fertil Steril 2006;85:913-7. |
| 98. | Youssef MA, Van der Veen F, Al-Inany HG, Mochtar MH, Griesinger G, Nagi Mohesen M, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist-assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;10:CD008046. |
| 99. | Zaat T, Zagers M, Mol F, Goddijn M, van Wely M, Mastenbroek S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;2:CD011184. |
| 100. | Griesinger G, Verweij PJ, Gates D, Devroey P, Gordon K, Stegmann BJ, et al. Prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in patients treated with Corifollitropin alfa or rFSH in a GnRH Antagonist Protocol. PLoS One 2016;11:e0149615. |
| 101. | Humaidan P, Engmann L, Benadiva C. Luteal phase supplementation after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger in fresh embryo transfer: The American versus European approaches. Fertil Steril 2015;103:879-85. |
| 102. | Blondin P, Coenen K, Guilbault LA, Sirard MA. Superovulation can reduce the developmental competence of bovine embryos. Theriogenology 1996;46:1191-203. |
| 103. | Ertzeid G, Storeng R. The impact of ovarian stimulation on implantation and fetal development in mice. Hum Reprod 2001;16:221-5. |
| 104. | Irani M, Canon C, Robles A, Maddy B, Gunnala V, Qin X, et al. No effect of ovarian stimulation and oocyte yield on euploidy and live birth rates: An analysis of 12 298 trophectoderm biopsies. Hum Reprod 2020;35:1082-9. |
| 105. | Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: An analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1768-74. |
| 106. | Vengetesh PM, Ramachandran A, Kumar P. Choosing GnRH antagonist protocol shows improved oocyte and embryo quality, coherent with the perifollicular vascularity (PFV) in assisted reproductive techniques. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:C24-8. |
| 107. | Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Ayeleke RO, Brown J, Lam WS, Broekmans FJ. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;4:CD001750. |
| 108. | Dietrich JE, Freis A, Beedgen F, von Horn K, Holschbach V, Liebscher J, et al. Intraindividual embryo morphokinetics are not affected by a switch of the ovarian stimulation protocol between GnRH Agonist vs. antagonist regimens in consecutive cycles. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2020;11:246. |
| 109. | Santos MA, Kuijk EW, Macklon NS. The impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the developing embryo. Reproduction 2010;139:23-34. |
| 110. | Abate A, Nazzaro A, Salerno A, Marzano F, Pavone Cossut MR, Perino M. Efficacy of recombinant versus human derived follicle stimulating hormone on the oocyte and embryo quality in IVF-ICSI cycles: Randomised, controlled, multi-centre trial. Gynecol Endocrinol 2009;25:479-84. |
| 111. | Parsanezhad ME, Jahromi BN, Rezaee S, Kooshesh L, Alaee S. The effect of four different gonadotropin protocols on oocyte and embryo quality and pregnancy outcomes in IVF/ICSI cycles; a randomized controlled trial. Iran J Med Sci 2017;42:57-65. |
| 112. | Sarkar P, Gandhi A, Plosker S, Ying Y, Mayer J, Imudia AN. Does supraphysiologic estradiol level during IVF have any effect on oocyte/embryo quality? A sibling embryo cohort analysis of fresh and subsequent frozen embryo transfer. Minerva Ginecol 2018;70:716-23. |
| 113. | Bosch E, Labarta E, Crespo J, Simón C, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Impact of luteinizing hormone administration on gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: An age-adjusted analysis. Fertil Steril 2011;95:1031-6. |
| 114. | König TE, van der Houwen LE, Overbeek A, Hendriks ML, Beutler-Beemsterboer SN, Kuchenbecker WK, et al. Recombinant LH supplementation to a standard GnRH antagonist protocol in women of 35 years or older undergoing IVF/ICSI: A randomized controlled multicentre study. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2804-12. |
| 115. | Papamentzelopoulou M, Stavros S, Mavrogianni D, Kalantzis C, Loutradis D, Drakakis P. Meta-analysis of GnRH-antagonists versus GnRH-agonists in poor responder protocols. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2021;304:547-57. |
| 116. | Filicori M, Cognigni GE, Taraborrelli S, Spettoli D, Ciampaglia W, de Fatis CT, et al. Luteinizing hormone activity supplementation enhances follicle-stimulating hormone efficacy and improves ovulation induction outcome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:2659-63. |
| 117. | Younis JS, Izhaki I, Ben-Ami M. The effect of LH supplementation to the GnRH antagonist protocol in advanced reproductive ageing women: A prospective randomized controlled study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2016;84:99-106. |
| 118. | Fleming R, Rehka P, Deshpande N, Jamieson ME, Yates RW, Lyall H. Suppression of LH during ovarian stimulation: Effects differ in cycles stimulated with purified urinary FSH and recombinant FSH. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1440-5. |
| 119. | von Wolff M, Kollmann Z, Flück CE, Stute P, Marti U, Weiss B, et al. Gonadotrophin stimulation for in vitro fertilization significantly alters the hormone milieu in follicular fluid: A comparative study between natural cycle IVF and conventional IVF. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1049-57. |
| 120. | Ruvolo G, Bosco L, Pane A, Morici G, Cittadini E, Roccheri MC. Lower apoptosis rate in human cumulus cells after administration of recombinant luteinizing hormone to women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization procedures. Fertil Steril 2007;87:542-6. |
| 121. | Santi D, Casarini L, Alviggi C, Simoni M. Efficacy of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) alone, FSH + luteinizing hormone, human menopausal gonadotropin or FSH + human chorionic gonadotropin on assisted reproductive technology outcomes in the “personalized” medicine era: A meta-analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2017;8:114. |
| 122. | Levi-Setti PE, Zerbetto I, Baggiani A, Zannoni E, Sacchi L, Smeraldi A, et al. An observational retrospective cohort trial on 4,828 IVF cycles evaluating different low prognosis patients following the POSEIDON criteria. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019;10:282. |
| 123. | Casarini L, Riccetti L, De Pascali F, Gilioli L, Marino M, Vecchi E, et al. Estrogen modulates specific life and death signals induced by LH and hCG in human primary granulosa cells in vitro. Int J Mol Sci 2017;18:E926. |
| 124. | Altmäe S, Hovatta O, Stavreus-Evers A, Salumets A. Genetic predictors of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: Where do we stand today? Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:813-28. |
| 125. | Behre HM, Greb RR, Mempel A, Sonntag B, Kiesel L, Kaltwasser P, et al. Significance of a common single nucleotide polymorphism in exon 10 of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) receptor gene for the ovarian response to FSH: A pharmacogenetic approach to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2005;15:451-6. |
| 126. | Alviggi C, Clarizia R, Coppola G, DeRosa P, DeBiasio G, Pettersson K, et al. O43a common LH polymorphism is associated with higher FSH consumption during ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI cycles. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2009;1:S105. |
| 127. | Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Ezcurra D. Hormonal, functional and genetic biomarkers in controlled ovarian stimulation: Tools for matching patients and protocols. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012;10:9. |
| 128. | Colaco S, Achrekar S, Patil A, Sawant U, Desai S, Mangoli V, et al. Association of AMH and AMHR2 gene polymorphisms with ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes in Indian women. J Assist Reprod Genet 2022. [doi: 10.1007/s10815-022-02541-w]. |
| 129. | Ramaraju GA, Cheemakurthi R, Prathigudupu K, Balabomma KL, Kalagara M, Thota S, et al. Role of Lh polymorphisms and r-hLh supplementation in GnRh agonist treated ART cycles: A cross sectional study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;222:119-25. |
| 130. | Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Pados G, Bontis I, et al. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2008;90:186-93. |
| 131. | AbdelHafez FF, Desai N, Abou-Setta AM, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20:209-22. |
| 132. | Evans J, Hannan NJ, Edgell TA, Vollenhoven BJ, Lutjen PJ, Osianlis T, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: Backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:808-21. |
| 133. | Blockeel C, Drakopoulos P, Santos-Ribeiro S, Polyzos NP, Tournaye H. A fresh look at the freeze-all protocol: A SWOT analysis. Hum Reprod 2016;31:491-7. |
| 134. | Biliangady R, Pandit R, Tudu NK, Kinila P, Maheswari U, Gopal IS, et al. Is it time to move toward freeze-all strategy? – A retrospective study comparing live birth rates between fresh and first frozen blastocyst transfer. J Hum Reprod Sci 2019;12:321-6. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 135. | Banker M, Dyer S, Chambers GM, Ishihara O, Kupka M, de Mouzon J, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ICMART): World report on assisted reproductive technologies, 2013. Fertil Steril 2021;116:741-56. |
| 136. | Chambers GM, Paul RC, Harris K, Fitzgerald O, Boothroyd CV, Rombauts L, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Australia and New Zealand: Cumulative live birth rates as measures of success. Med J Aust 2017;207:114-8. |
| 137. | Christianson MS, Stern JE, Sun F, Zhang H, Styer AK, Vitek W, et al. Embryo cryopreservation and utilization in the United States from 2004-2013. F S Rep 2020;1:71-7. |
| 138. | Kolibianakis E, Bourgain C, Albano C, Osmanagaoglu K, Smitz J, Van Steirteghem A, et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists, and human chorionic gonadotropin on endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte pick-up. Fertil Steril 2002;78:1025-9. |
| 139. | Horcajadas JA, Mínguez P, Dopazo J, Esteban FJ, Domínguez F, Giudice LC, et al. Controlled ovarian stimulation induces a functional genomic delay of the endometrium with potential clinical implications. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2008;93:4500-10. |
| 140. | Roque M, Valle M, Kostolias A, Sampaio M, Geber S. Freeze-all cycle in reproductive medicine: Current perspectives. JBRA Assist Reprod 2017;21:49-53. |
| 141. | Ben Rafael Z. Should we still offer elective freezing of all embryos in all IVF cycles? Hum Reprod 2020;35:2179-84. |
| 142. | Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Amalraj Raja E, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update 2018;24:35-58. |
| 143. | Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2593-7. |
| 144. | Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013;99:156-62. |
| 145. | Chen ZJ, Shi Y, Sun Y, Zhang B, Liang X, Cao Y, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2016;375:523-33. |
| 146. | Dieamant FC, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Comar V, Mattila M, Vagnini LD, et al. Fresh embryos versus freeze-all embryos - transfer strategies: Nuances of a meta-analysis. JBRA Assist Reprod 2017;21:260-72. |
| 147. | Li Z, Wang AY, Bowman M, Hammarberg K, Farquhar C, Johnson L, et al. Cumulative live birth rates following a 'freeze-all' strategy: A population-based study. Hum Reprod Open 2019;2019:hoz004. |
| 148. | Vuong LN, Dang VQ, Ho TM, Huynh BG, Ha DT, Pham TD, et al. IVF transfer of fresh or frozen embryos in women without polycystic ovaries. N Engl J Med 2018;378:137-47. |
| 149. | Acharya KS, Acharya CR, Bishop K, Harris B, Raburn D, Muasher SJ. Freezing of all embryos in in vitro fertilization is beneficial in high responders, but not intermediate and low responders: An analysis of 82,935 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil Steril 2018;110:880-7. |
| 150. | Álvarez M, Gaggiotti-Marre S, Martínez F, Coll L, García S, González-Foruria I, et al. Individualised luteal phase support in artificially prepared frozen embryo transfer cycles based on serum progesterone levels: A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod 2021;36:1552-60. |
| 151. | Gao H, Ye J, Ye H, Hong Q, Sun L, Chen Q. Strengthened luteal phase support for patients with low serum progesterone on the day of frozen embryo transfer in artificial endometrial preparation cycles: A large-sample retrospective trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2021;19:60. |
| 152. | Hackelöer BJ, Fleming R, Robinson HP, Adam AH, Coutts JR. Correlation of ultrasonic and endocrinologic assessment of human follicular development. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1979;135:122-8. |
| 153. | Kwan I, Bhattacharya S, Woolner A. Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;4:CD005289. |
| 154. | Duijkers IJ, Louwé LA, Braat DD, Klipping C. One, two or three: How many directions are useful in transvaginal ultrasound measurement of ovarian follicles? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;117:60-3. |
| 155. | Wu Y, Gao X, Lu X, Xi J, Jiang S, Sun Y, et al. Endometrial thickness affects the outcome of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in normal responders after GnRH antagonist administration. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014;12:96. |
| 156. | Coulam CB, Goodman C, Rinehart JS. Colour Doppler indices of follicular blood flow as predictors of pregnancy after in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1999;14:1979-82. |
| 157. | Turnbull LW, Lesny P, Killick SR. Assessment of uterine receptivity prior to embryo transfer: A review of currently available imaging modalities. Hum Reprod Update 1995;1:505-14. |
| 158. | Friedler S, Schenker JG, Herman A, Lewin A. The role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of endometrial receptivity following assisted reproductive treatments: A critical review. Hum Reprod Update 1996;2:323-35. |
| 159. | Yaman C, Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Pölz W, Tews G. Role of three-dimensional ultrasonographic measurement of endometrium volume as a predictor of pregnancy outcome in an IVF-ET program: A preliminary study. Fertil Steril 2000;74:797-801. |
| 160. | Zollner U, Zollner KP, Specketer MT, Blissing S, Müller T, Steck T, et al. Endometrial volume as assessed by three-dimensional ultrasound is a predictor of pregnancy outcome after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2003;80:1515-7. |
| 161. | Yaman C, Mayer R. Three-dimensional ultrasound as a predictor of pregnancy in patients undergoing ART. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc 2012;13:128-34. |
| 162. | Silverberg KM, Olive DL, Burns WN, Johnson JV, Groff TR, Schenken RS. Follicular size at the time of human chorionic gonadotropin administration predicts ovulation outcome in human menopausal gonadotropin-stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril 1991;56:296-300. |
| 163. | Haning RV Jr., Boehnlein LM, Carlson IH, Kuzma DL, Zweibel WJ. Diagnosis-specific serum 17 beta-estradiol (E2) upper limits for treatment with menotropins using a 125I direct E2 assay. Fertil Steril 1984;42:882-9. |
| 164. | Bosch E, Labarta E, Crespo J, Simón C, Remohí J, Jenkins J, et al. Circulating progesterone levels and ongoing pregnancy rates in controlled ovarian stimulation cycles for in vitro fertilization: Analysis of over 4000 cycles. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2092-100. |
| 165. | Van Vaerenbergh I, Fatemi HM, Blockeel C, Van Lommel L, In't Veld P, Schuit F, et al. Progesterone rise on HCG day in GnRH antagonist/rFSH stimulated cycles affects endometrial gene expression. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;22:263-71. |
| 166. | Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Bontis J, Tarlatzis BC. Significantly lower pregnancy rates in the presence of progesterone elevation in patients treated with GnRH antagonists and gonadotrophins: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 2012;13:464-70. |
| 167. | Labarta E, Mariani G, Rodríguez-Varela C, Bosch E. Individualized luteal phase support normalizes live birth rate in women with low progesterone levels on the day of embryo transfer in artificial endometrial preparation cycles. Fertil Steril 2022;117:96-103. |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]
|
