Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine

The Korean Society for Reproductive Medicine (대한생식의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Cumulative live birth rate after up to three consecutive embryo transfer cycles in women with poor ovarian response

  • Kim, Se Jeong (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fertility Center of CHA Gangnam Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Dayong (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Seul Ki (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Jee, Byung Chul (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Seok Hyun (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Seoul National University College of Medicine)
  • Received : 2019.09.23
  • Accepted : 2020.01.02
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: In the present study, we aimed to retrospectively evaluate the cumulative live birth rate (LBR) after up to three consecutive embryo transfer (ET) cycles, either fresh or frozen, in women with expected poor ovarian response (ePOR). Methods: We selected 115 women who entered the first in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle between August 2013 and July 2016. The women were divided into an ePOR group (37 women) and a non-ePOR group (78 women). All women in the ePOR group were ≥ 40 years old or had serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels of less than 1.1 ng/mL at the time of the first IVF cycle. Live birth outcomes were monitored until December 2017. The cumulative LBR (with both conservative and optimistic estimates) was calculated according to the serial number of ET cycles. Results: After up to three ET cycles, the overall cumulative LBR was significantly lower in the ePOR group than in the non-ePOR group (conservative estimate, 10.8% vs. 44.9%, respectively; optimistic estimate, 14.7% vs. 56.1%, respectively; log-rank test, p= 0.003). Conclusion: Women with ePOR exhibited a lower cumulative LBR than women in the non-ePOR group, and this information should be provided to ePOR women during counseling before starting IVF.

Keywords

References

  1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der092
  2. Busnelli A, Papaleo E, Del Prato D, La Vecchia I, Iachini E, Paffoni A, et al. A retrospective evaluation of prognosis and cost-effectiveness of IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2015;30:315-22. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu319
  3. Polyzos NP, Drakopoulos P, Parra J, Pellicer A, Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, et al. Cumulative live birth rates according to the number of oocytes retrieved after the first ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multicenter multinational analysis including -15,000 women. Fertil Steril 2018;110:661-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.039
  4. Xu B, Chen Y, Geerts D, Yue J, Li Z, Zhu G, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in more than 3,000 patients with poor ovarian response: a 15-year survey of final in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2018;109:1051-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.001
  5. Raz N, Shalev A, Horowitz E, Weissman A, Mizrachi Y, Ganer Herman H, et al. Cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates through assisted reproduction in women 44-45 years of age: is there any hope? J Assist Reprod Genet 2018;35:441-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-017-1094-0
  6. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:113-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp036
  7. Iliodromiti S, Kelsey TW, Wu O, Anderson RA, Nelson SM. The predictive accuracy of anti-Mullerian hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:560-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmu003
  8. Tal R, Tal O, Seifer BJ, Seifer DB. Antimullerian hormone as predictor of implantation and clinical pregnancy after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2015;103:119-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.09.041
  9. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor? A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr037
  10. Leijdekkers JA, Eijkemans MJ, van Tilborg TC, Oudshoorn SC, van Golde RJ, Hoek A, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women. Hum Reprod 2019;34:1030-41. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez051
  11. Gameiro S, Boivin J, Peronace L, Verhaak CM. Why do patients discontinue fertility treatment? A systematic review of reasons and predictors of discontinuation in fertility treatment. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:652-69. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dms031
  12. Abuzeid MI, Bolonduro O, La Chance J, Abozaid T, Urich M, Ullah K, et al. Cumulative live birth rate and assisted reproduction: impact of female age and transfer day. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2014;6:145-9.
  13. Margalioth EJ, Ben-Chetrit A, Gal M, Eldar-Geva T. Investigation and treatment of repeated implantation failure following IVF-ET. Hum Reprod 2006;21:3036-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del305