nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.08.2012 | Reproductive Medicine

A short narrative review of the feasibility of adopting mild ovarian stimulation for IVF as the current standard of care

verfasst von: Charalampos Siristatidis, Marialena Trivella, Charalampos Chrelias, Vasileios D. Sioulas, Nikolaos Vrachnis, Dimitrios Kassanos

Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Ausgabe 2/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Mild ovarian stimulation has been conceived, proposed and implemented in clinical practice as a safer and cheaper alternative to conventional strategies of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in preparation for in vitro fertilization (IVF). Our aim was to summarize the key evidence on this topic and explore its possible role as the standard treatment option for women undergoing IVF.

Materials and Methods

A short narrative review of the existing literature, with emphasis on mild ovarian stimulation clinical and cost effectiveness, as well as treatment limitations.

Results

Numerous studies highlight mild ovarian stimulation’s favorable characteristics with respect to oocyte/embryo quality, reduced patient risk, and ease of intervention. There is, however, a need for high-quality laboratory environment. Limitations regarding poor responders, older women, or those seeking ovarian stimulation for non-infertility indications should also be considered. Finally, outcomes on the cumulative success rates and the cost effectiveness of mild ovarian stimulation remain inconclusive.

Conclusion

Mild ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF should currently be implemented only in carefully selected populations. Further research is needed to clarify the remaining controversies in this IVF approach.

Nargund G, Fauser BC, Macklon NS, Rotterdam ISMAAR Consensus Group on Terminology for Ovarian Stimulation for IVF et al (2007) The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod 22:2801–2804PubMedCrossRef

Verberg MF, Macklon NS, Nargund G et al (2009) Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod Update 15:13–29PubMedCrossRef

Branigan EF, Estes MA (2000) Minimal stimulation IVF using clomiphene citrate and oral contraceptive pill pretreatment for LH suppression. Fertil Steril 73:587–590PubMedCrossRef

Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, De Klerk C et al (2007) A mild treatment strategy for in vitro fertilization: a randomized non-inferiority trial. Lancet 369:743–749PubMedCrossRef

Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, et al (2011) Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (5):CD001750

Maheshwari A, Gibreel A, Siristatidis CS, Bhattacharya S (2011) Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (8):CD006919

Nakamura Y, Ono M, Yoshida Y et al (1997) Effects of clomiphene citrate on the endometrial thickness and echogenic pattern of the endometrium. Fertil Steril 67:256–260PubMedCrossRef

Amita M, Takahashi T, Tsutsumi S et al (2010) Molecular mechanism of the inhibition of estradiol-induced endometrial cell proliferation by clomiphene citrate. Endocrinology 151:394–405PubMedCrossRef

Fauser BC, Nargund G, Andersen AN et al (2010) Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: 10 years later. Hum Reprod 25:2678–2684PubMedCrossRef

10.

Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ et al (2007) Milder ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 22:980–988PubMedCrossRef

11.

Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Macklon NS et al (2008) Predictors of ongoing pregnancy after single-embryo transfer following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF. Fertil Steril 89:1159–1165PubMedCrossRef

12.

Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Macklon NS et al (2009) The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 15:5–12PubMedCrossRef

13.

Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS, Jenkins JM (1997) Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:521–527PubMedCrossRef

14.

Devroey P, Bourgain C, Macklon NS, Fauser BC (2004) Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity. Trends Endocrinol Metab 15:84–90PubMedCrossRef

15.

Rossing MA, Daling JR, Weiss NS et al (1994) Ovarian tumors in a cohort of infertile women. N Engl J Med 331:771–776PubMedCrossRef

16.

Whittemore AS, Harris R, Itnyre J, Collaborative Ovarian Cancer Group (1992) Characteristics relating to ovarian cancer risk: collaborative analysis of 12 US case-control studies. II. Invasive epithelial ovarian cancers in white women. Am J Epidemiol 136:1184–1203PubMed

17.

Pu D, Wu J, Liu J (2011) Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 26:2742–2749PubMedCrossRef

18.

Hohmann FP, Macklon NS, Fauser BC (2003) A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88:166–173PubMedCrossRef

19.

Cakmak H, Taylor HS (2011) Implantation failure: molecular mechanisms and clinical treatment. Hum Reprod Update 17:242–253PubMedCrossRef

20.

Simón C, Cano F, Valbuena D, Remohi J, Pellicer A (1995) Clinical evidence for a detrimental effect on uterine receptivity of high serum oestradiol concentrations in high and normal responder patients. Hum Reprod 10:2432–2437PubMed

21.

Lessey BA (2011) Assessment of endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril 96:522–529PubMedCrossRef

22.

Levi AJ, Drews MR, Bergh PA, Miller BT, Scott RT Jr (2001) Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation does not adversely affect endometrial receptivity in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 76:670–674PubMedCrossRef

23.

Horcajadas JA, Mínguez P, Dopazo J et al (2008) Controlled ovarian stimulation induces a functional genomic delay of the endometrium with potential clinical implications. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93:4500–4510PubMedCrossRef

24.

Santos MA, Kuijk EW, Macklon NS (2010) The impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the developing embryo. Reproduction 139:23–34PubMedCrossRef

25.

Pelinck MJ, Vogel NA, Hoek A et al (2006) Cumulative pregnancy rates after three cycles of minimal stimulation IVF and results according to subfertility diagnosis: a multicentre cohort study. Hum Reprod 21:2375–2383PubMedCrossRef

26.

Kovacs P, Matyas S, Bernard A, Kaali SG (2004) Comparison of clinical outcome and costs with CC + gonadotropins and gnrha + gonadotropins during IVF/ICSI cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 21:197–202PubMedCrossRef

27.

Mansour R, Aboulghar M, Serour GI et al (2003) The use of clomiphene citrate/human menopausal gonadotrophins in conjunction with GnRH antagonist in an IVF/ICSI program is not a cost effective protocol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 82:48–52PubMedCrossRef

28.

Teramoto S, Kato O (2007) Minimal ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: a large-scale retrospective study. Reprod Biomed Online 15:134–148PubMedCrossRef

29.

Heijnen EM, Macklon NS, Fauser BC (2004) What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment. Hum Reprod 19:1936–1938PubMedCrossRef

30.

Polinder S, Heijnen EM, Macklon NS et al (2008) Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint. Hum Reprod 23:316–323PubMedCrossRef

31.

Pandian Z, Templeton A, Serour G, Bhattacharya S (2005) Number of embryos for transfer after IVF and ICSI: a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 20:2681–2687PubMedCrossRef

32.

Thurin A, Hardarson T, Hausken J et al (2005) Predictors of ongoing implantation in IVF in a good prognosis group of patient. Hum Reprod 20:1876–1880PubMedCrossRef

33.

Matson PL (1998) Internal quality control and external quality assurance in the IVF laboratory. Hum Reprod 13(Suppl 4):156–165PubMedCrossRef

34.

Keck C, Fischer R, Baukloh V, Alper M (2005) Staff management in the in vitro fertilization laboratory. Fertil Steril 84:1786–1788PubMedCrossRef

35.

Frydman N, Fanchin R, Le Dû A et al (2004) Improvement of IVF results and optimization of quality control by using intermittent activity. Reprod Biomed Online 9:521–528PubMedCrossRef

36.

Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2008) Revised guidelines for human embryology and andrology laboratories. Fertil Steril 90(5 Suppl):S45–S59

37.

Bellver J, Pellicer A (2009) Ovarian stimulation for ovulation induction and in vitro fertilization in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and antiphospholipid syndrome. Fertil Steril 92:1803–1810PubMedCrossRef

38.

Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology, Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2008) Preimplantation genetic testing: a Practice Committee opinion. Fertil Steril 90(5 Suppl):S136–S143

39.

Diedrich K, Fauser BC, Devroey P, Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR) Workshop Group 2009 (2011) Cancer and fertility: strategies to preserve fertility. Reprod Biomed Online 22:232–248PubMedCrossRef

40.

Rienzi L, Cobo A, Paffoni A et al (2012) Consistent and predictable delivery rates after oocyte vitrification: an observational longitudinal cohort multicentric study. Hum Reprod. doi:10.1093/humrep/des088

41.

Cobo A, Garrido N, Crespo J, José R, Pellicer A (2012) Accumulation of oocytes: a new strategy for managing low-responder patients. Reprod Biomed Online 24:424–432PubMedCrossRef

42.

de Klerk C, Macklon NS, Heijnen EM et al (2007) The psychological impact of IVF failure after two or more cycles of IVF with a mild versus standard treatment strategy. Hum Reprod 22:2554–2558PubMedCrossRef

43.

de Klerk C, Heijnen EM, Macklon NS et al (2006) The psychological impact of mild ovarian stimulation combined with single embryo transfer compared with conventional IVF. Hum Reprod 21:721–727PubMedCrossRef

44.

Højgaard A, Ingerslev HJ, Dinesen J (2001) Friendly IVF: patients view. Hum Reprod 16:1391–1396PubMedCrossRef

45.

Twisk M, van der Veen F, Repping S et al (2007) Preferences of subfertile women regarding elective single embryo transfer: additional in vitro fertilization cycles are acceptable, lower pregnancy rates are not. Fertil Steril 88:1006–1009PubMedCrossRef

Titel: A short narrative review of the feasibility of adopting mild ovarian stimulation for IVF as the current standard of care
verfasst von: Charalampos Siristatidis
Marialena Trivella
Charalampos Chrelias
Vasileios D. Sioulas
Nikolaos Vrachnis
Dimitrios Kassanos
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2012
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Ausgabe 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2347-x

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Ambulantisierung: Erste Erfahrungen mit dem Hybrid-DRG

02.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Die Hybrid-DRG-Verordnung soll dazu führen, dass mehr chirurgische Eingriffe ambulant durchgeführt werden, wie es in anderen Ländern schon länger üblich ist. Die gleiche Vergütung im ambulanten und stationären Sektor hatten Niedergelassene schon lange gefordert. Aber die Umsetzung bereitet ihnen doch Kopfzerbrechen.

Sind Frauen die fähigeren Ärzte?

30.04.2024 Gendermedizin Nachrichten

Patienten, die von Ärztinnen behandelt werden, dürfen offenbar auf bessere Therapieergebnisse hoffen als Patienten von Ärzten. Besonders gilt das offenbar für weibliche Kranke, wie eine Studie zeigt.

Harninkontinenz: Netz-Op. erfordert über lange Zeit intensive Nachsorge

30.04.2024 Harninkontinenz Nachrichten

Frauen mit Belastungsinkontinenz oder Organprolaps sind nach einer Netz-Operation keineswegs beschwerdefrei. Vielmehr scheint die Krankheitslast weiterhin hoch zu sein, sogar höher als von harninkontinenten Frauen, die sich nicht haben operieren lassen.

Welche Übungen helfen gegen Diastase recti abdominis?

30.04.2024 Schwangerenvorsorge Nachrichten

Die Autorinnen und Autoren einer aktuellen Studie aus Griechenland sind sich einig, dass Bewegungstherapie, einschließlich Übungen zur Stärkung der Bauchmuskulatur und zur Stabilisierung des Rumpfes, eine Diastase recti abdominis postpartum wirksam reduzieren kann. Doch vieles ist noch nicht eindeutig belegt.

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2012

Transfer of blastocysts derived from frozen-thawed cleavage stage embryos improved ongoing pregnancy

Effect of placenta previa on fetal growth restriction and stillbirth

Simultaneous presentation of tubal and primary abdominal pregnancies following clomiphene citrate treatment

Work-related repetitive strain injuries amongst practitioners of obstetric and gynaecological ultrasound worldwide