Cumulative live birth rate after three ovarian stimulation IVF cycles for poor ovarian responders according to the bologna criteria

Abstract

This study explored the cumulative live birth rate after three ovarian stimulation in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles for poor ovarian responders according to the Bologna criteria. In this retrospective cohort study, 479 poor ovarian responders according to the Bologna criteria in the first ovarian stimulation IVF cycle between July 2006 and January 2012 in our IVF centre were included. The cumulative live birth rate was calculated by optimistic and pessimistic methods. The cumulative live birth rate after three ovarian stimulation IVF cycles for poor ovarian responders according to the Bologna criteria was 12.7%–20.5%. The three-cycle cumulative live birth rate was 18.5%–24.5%, 13.2%–27.4% and 8.6%–14.9% for poor responders aged ≤35 years, 36–39 years and ≥40 years, respectively. In conclusion, poor responders according to the Bologna criteria can receive an acceptable cumulative live birth rate after three ovarian stimulation IVF cycles, especially poor responders aged <40 years.

Keywords

ovarian stimulation / in vitro fertilization / Bologna criteria / poor responders / cumulative live birth

References

[1] HealyDL, OkamatoS, MorrowL, et al.. Contributions of in vitro fertilization to knowledge of the reproductive^endocrinology of the menstrual cycle. Baillieres Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1987, 1(1): 133-152

[2] JenningsJC, MorelandK, PetersonCM. In vitro fertilisation. A review of drug therapy and clinical management. Drugs, 1996, 52(3): 313-343

[3] UlugU, Ben-ShlomoI, TuranE, et al.. Conception rates following assisted reproduction in poor responder patients: a retrospective study in 300 consecutive cycles. Reprod Biomed Online, 2003, 6(4): 439-443

[4] BiljanMM, BuckettWM, DeanN, et al.. The outcome of IVF-embryo transfer treatment in patients who develop three follicles or less. Hum Reprod, 2000, 15(10): 2140-2144

[5] De SutterP, DhontM. Poor response after hormonal stimulation for in vitro fertilization is not related to ovarian aging. Fertil Steril, 2003, 79(6): 1294-1298

[6] IngeGB, BrinsdenPR, ElderKT. Oocyte number per live birth in IVF: were Steptoe and Edwards less wasteful?. Hum Reprod, 2005, 20(3): 588-592

[7] VelevaZ, JarvelaIY, Nuojua-HuttunenS, et al.. An initial low response predicts poor outcome in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection despite improved ovarian response in consecutive cycles. Fertil Steril, 2005, 83(5): 1384-1390

[8] HendriksDJ, te VeldeER, LoomanCW, et al.. Expected poor ovarian response in predicting cumulative pregnancy rates: a powerful tool. Reprod Biomed Online, 2008, 17(5): 727-736

[9] OrvietoR, MeltcerS, NahumR, et al.. The influence of body mass index on in vitro fertilization outcome. Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2009, 104(1): 53-55

[10] FerrarettiAP, La MarcaA, FauserBC, et al.. ESHRE consensus on the definition of’ poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(7): 1616-1624

[11] PolyzosNP, DevroeyP. A systematic review of randomized trials for the treatment of poor ovarian responders: is there any light at the end of the tunnel?. Fertil Steril, 2011, 96(5): 1058-1061

[12] PolyzosNP, BlockeelC, VerpoestW, et al.. Live birth rates following natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod, 2012, 27(12): 3481-3486

[13] LainasTG, SfontourisIA, ZorzovilisIZ, et al.. Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated for IVF: a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT). Hum Reprod, 2010, 25(3): 683-689

[14] StolwijkAM, HamiltonCJ, HollandersJM, et al.. A more realistic approach to the cumulative pregnancy rate after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod, 1996, 11(3): 660-663

[15] OliviusK, FridenB, LundinK, et al.. Cumulative probability of live birth after three in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Fertil Steril, 2002, 77(3): 505-510

[16] SaldeenP, KallenK, SundstromP. The probability of successful IVF outcome after poor ovarian response. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2007, 86(4): 457-461

[17] TimevaT, MilachichT, AntonovaI, et al.. Correlation between number of retrieved oocytes and pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm infection. Sci World J, 2006, 6: 686-690

[18] ZhenXM, QiaoJ, LiR, et al.. The clinical analysis of poor ovarian response in in-vitro-fertilization embryo-transfer among Chinese couples. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2008, 25(1): 17-22

[19] MamanE, GevaLL, YerushalmiG, et al.. ICSI increases ongoing pregnancy rates in patients with poor response cycle: multivariate analysis of 2819 cycles. Reprod Biomed Online, 2012, 25(6): 635-641

[20] HanochJ, LavyY, HolzerH, et al.. Young low responders protected from untoward effects of reduced ovarian response. Fertil Steril, 1998, 69(6): 1001-1004

[21] Galey-FontaineJ, Cedrin-DurnerinI, ChaibiR, et al.. Age and ovarian reserve are distinct predictive factors of cycle outcome in low responders. Reprod Biomed Online, 2005, 10(1): 94-99