scholarly journals No effect of ovarian stimulation and oocyte yield on euploidy and live birth rates: an analysis of 12 298 trophectoderm biopsies

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (5) ◽  
pp. 1082-1089 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Irani ◽  
C Canon ◽  
A Robles ◽  
B Maddy ◽  
V Gunnala ◽  
...  

STUDY QUESTION Does ovarian stimulation affect embryo euploidy rates or live birth rates (LBRs) after transfer of euploid embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER Euploidy rates and LBRs after transfer of euploid embryos are not significantly influenced by gonadotropin dosage, duration of ovarian stimulation, estradiol level, follicle size at ovulation trigger or number of oocytes retrieved, regardless of a woman’s age. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Aneuploidy rates increase steadily with age, reaching >80% in women >42 years old. The goal of ovarian stimulation is to overcome this high aneuploidy rate through the recruitment of several follicles, which increases the likelihood of obtaining a euploid embryo that results in a healthy conceptus. However, several studies have suggested that a high response to stimulation might be embryotoxic and/or increase aneuploidy rates by enhancing abnormal segregation of chromosomes during meiosis. Furthermore, a recent study demonstrated a remarkable difference in euploidy rates, ranging from 39.5 to 82.5%, among young oocyte donors in 42 fertility centres, potentially suggesting an iatrogenic etiology resulting from different stimulation methods. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a retrospective cohort study that included 2230 in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles and 930 frozen-thawed single euploid embryo transfer (FET) cycles, performed in our centre between 2013 and 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS A total of 12 298 embryos were analysed for ploidy status. Women were divided into five age groups (<35, 35–37, 38–40, 41–42 and >42 years old). Outcomes were compared between different durations of stimulation (<10, 10–12 and ≥13 days), total gonadotropin dosages (<4000, 4000–6000 and >6000 IU), numbers of oocytes retrieved (<10, 10–19 and ≥20 oocytes), peak estradiol levels (<2000, 2000–3000 and >3000 pg/mL), and sizes of the largest follicle on the day of trigger (<20 and ≥20 mm). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Within the same age group, both euploidy rates and LBRs were comparable between cycles regardless of their differences in total gonadotropin dosage, duration of stimulation, number of oocytes harvested, size of the largest follicles or peak estradiol levels. In the youngest group, (<35 years, n = 3469 embryos), euploidy rates were comparable between cycles with various total gonadotropin dosages (55.6% for <4000 IU, 52.9% for 4000–6000 IU and 62.3% for >6000 IU; P = 0.3), durations of stimulation (54.4% for <10 days, 55.2% for 10–12 days and 60.9% for >12 days; P = 0.2), number of oocytes harvested (59.4% for <10 oocytes, 55.2% for 10–19 oocytes and 53.4% for ≥20 oocytes; P = 0.2), peak estradiol levels (55.7% for E2 < 2000 pg/mL, 55.4% for E2 2000–3000 pg/mL and 54.8% for E2 > 3000 pg/mL; P = 0.9) and sizes of the largest follicle (55.6% for follicles <20 mm and 55.1% for follicles ≥20 mm; P = 0.8). Similarly, in the oldest group (>42 years, n = 1157 embryos), euploidy rates ranged from 8.7% for gonadotropins <4000 IU to 5.1% for gonadotropins >6000 IU (P = 0.3), from 10.8% for <10 days of stimulation to 8.5% for >12 days of stimulation (P = 0.3), from 7.3% for <10 oocytes to 7.4% for ≥20 oocytes (P = 0.4), from 8.8% for E2 < 2000 pg/mL to 7.5% for E2 > 3000 pg/mL (P = 0.8) and from 8.2% for the largest follicle <20 mm to 8.9% for ≥20 mm (P = 0.7). LBRs after single FET were also comparable between these groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Although this large study (2230 IVF/PGT-A cycles, 12 298 embryos and 930 single FET cycles) demonstrates the safety of ovarian stimulation in terms of aneuploidy and implantation potential of euploid embryos, a multi-centre study may help to prove the generalisability of our single-centre data. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These findings reassure providers and patients that gonadotropin dosage, duration of ovarian stimulation, estradiol level, follicle size at ovulation trigger and number of oocytes retrieved, within certain ranges, do not appear to significantly influence euploidy rates or LBRs, regardless of the woman’s age. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding was received and there are no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A

2014 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 469-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikolaos P. Polyzos ◽  
Milie Nwoye ◽  
Roberta Corona ◽  
Christophe Blockeel ◽  
Dominic Stoop ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (19) ◽  
pp. 3184-3188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Snezhana Stojkovska ◽  
Gligor Dimitrov ◽  
Nikoleta Stamenkovska ◽  
Makuli Hadzi-Lega ◽  
Zoran Petanovski

BACKGROUND: This prospective pilot study determined the efficacy of previous transvaginal intraovarian injection with autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in poor ovarian responders (PORs) fulfilling the Bologna criteria before in vitro fertilisation (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with low dose ovarian stimulation. Current knowledge of efficient treatment for PORs is limited and often contradictory; also, LBRs of IVF remains disappointingly low. AIM: We assessed the live birth rates (LBRs) in PORs after previous ovarian treatment with PRP. METHODS: Overall, 40 patients undergoing IVF/ICSI between June 2017 ending December 2018 were included. A transvaginal intraovarian injection of PRP was performed on 20 patients. Both compered groups were balanced for all basic characteristics, and multivariate analysis was performed to adjust for all known confounders. RESULTS: Between the groups, a statistical significance in clinical pregnancies and LBR was not found. Clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were 33.33 ± 44.99 and 40.00 ± 50.71 in the PRP group and 10.71 ± 28.95 and 14.29 ± 36.31 in control group retrospectively. However, there is a trend towards higher implantation rates and LBRs in patients with previous treatment with PRP. Anyhow, the number of patients used in the research is insufficient to make a concrete conclusion, and more studies are needed in the future to confirm these results entirely. CONCLUSION: Even though the treatment of POR responders remains as a therapeutical challenge, the usage of intraovarian injection of autologous PRP in PORs before the IVF performance brings a glimpse of new hope in increasing the success of IVF defined by clinical pregnancy and LBRs.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Chen ◽  
Zhi qin Chen ◽  
Ernest Hung Yu Ng ◽  
zili sun ◽  
Zheng wang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The efficacy and reproductive outcomes of progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol (PPOS) were previously compared to rarely used ovarian stimulation protocol and also the live birth rate were reported by per embryo transfer rather than cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs). Does the use of PPOS improve the cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) and shorten time to live birth when compared to long GnRH agonist protocol in women with normal ovarian reserve?Methods: A retrospective cohort study was designed to include women aged<40 with normal ovarian reserve (regular menstrual cycles, FSH <10 IU/L, antral follicle count >5) undergoing IVF from January 2017 to December 2019. The primary outcome was cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) within 18 months from the day of ovarian stimulation.Results: A total of 995 patients were analyzed. They used either PPOS (n=509) or long GnRH agonist (n=486) protocol at the discretion of the attending physicians. Both groups had almost comparable demographic and cycle stimulation characteristics except for duration of infertility which was shorter in the PPOS group. In the GnRH agonist group 372 cases (77%) completed fresh embryo transfer, resulting into 218 clinical pregnancies and 179 live birth. The clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth per transfer were 58.6%, 54.0%, 53.0% respectively. In the PPOS, no fresh transfer was carried out. During the study period, the total number of initiated FET cycles with thawed embryos was 665 in the PPOS group and 259 in the long agonist group. Of all FET cycles, a total of 206/662 (31.1%) cycles resulted in a live birth in the PPOS group versus 110/257 (42.8%) in the long agonist group (OR: 0.727; 95% CI: 0.607–0.871; p<0.001) .The implantation rate of total FET cycles was also lower in the PPOS group compared with that in the agonist group 293/1004 (29.2%) and 157/455 (34.5%) (OR: 0.846; 95% CI: 0.721–0.992; p= 0.041). Cumulative live birth rates after one complete IVF cycle including fresh and subsequent frozen embryo cycles within 18 months follow up were significantly lower in the PPOS group compared that in the long agonist group 206/509 (40.5%) and 307/486 (63.2%), respectively (OR: 0.641; 95% CI: 0.565-0.726). The average time from ovarian stimulation to pregnancy and live birth was significantly shorter in the long agonist group compared to the PPOS group (p<0.01) In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth was significantly higher in the long agonist compared in the PPOS group(Log rank test, p<0.001). Cox regression analysis revealed stimulation protocol adopted was strongly associated with the cumulative live birth rate after adjusting other confounding factors (OR =1.917 (1.152-3.190), p=0.012) .Conclusion: Progestin primed ovarian stimulation was associated with a lower cumulative live birth rates and a longer time to pregnancy / live birth than the long agonist protocol in women with a normal ovarian reserve.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 826-836 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Montoya-Botero ◽  
Francisca Martinez ◽  
Jorge Rodríguez-Purata ◽  
Ignacio Rodríguez ◽  
Buenaventura Coroleu ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are there any differences in the fresh (LB) and cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) of women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF/ICSI following pretreatment with different types of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) for different durations as compared to no-OCP? SUMMARY ANSWER OCP administration for an interval of 12- to 30-day treatment period and with a 5-day washout period does not affect clinical pregnancy, LB nor cumulative LB in patients undergoing COS for an IVF cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The use of OCP is an effective way of treatment planning in IVF/ICSI cycles, but published evidence about its effect on pregnancy and LBR is inconsistent, some studies finding decreased rates but others no difference. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a retrospective analysis carried out in a University-affiliated tertiary centre between January 2009 and December 2017. Overall, 4116 infertile women between 18 and 45 years, who underwent their first ovarian stimulation cycle in our centre, were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Patients were categorised into two groups as receiving OCP (n = 3517) or not (no OCP, n = 599). All patients with OCP pretreatment initiated controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) 5 days post-pill. Overall, two types of OCP were used at the study’s centre: ethinylestradiol (EE) 30 μg/desogestrel 150 μg, a third-generation progesterone; or EE 30 μg/drospirenone 3 mg, a fourth-generation progestin with mild antiandrogenic activity. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of n = 4116 patients were analysed, (OCP n = 3517 and non-OCP n = 599). The use of OCP was independently associated with a small increase in the number of oocytes retrieved after adjusting for age, BMI, use of OCP, cause of infertility, initial dose (IU), type of gonadotropin, stimulation days, total stimulation units (total IU) (β 0.22, 95% CI 0.12–0.31). Cumulative LBRs were comparable between groups OCP versus non-OCP (32.4 versus 31.6%, P = 0.712). Following adjustment for age, BMI, infertility diagnosis, starting and total dose, type of gonadotropin, total days of stimulation, type of insemination, number of oocytes retrieved, day of transfer and number of embryos transferred in a multiple logistic analysis, patients using OCPs had a similar probability of achieving a LB as compared with patients not-using OCPs following fresh embryo transfer (ORadj 0.89, 95% CI 0.69–1.15) and a similar probability for CLBR after the use of fresh and frozen embryos (ORadj 0.94, 95% CI 0.73–1.21). No differences were observed in ovarian stimulation and clinical outcomes between drospirenone and desogestrel OCP groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Limitations are related to the retrospective nature of the study; despite the sample size, the adjustments and the multivariable regression analysis conducted, we cannot exclude the presence of confounding bias. OCP administration was not randomly assigned, not allowing to exclude the presence of selection bias. Lastly, we only used two types of OCP with durations and washout periods as per institution protocol. Therefore, we cannot exclude that longer duration of administration, a different type of OCP or different pill-free interval might have had an alternative effect on LBR or CLBR; thus, the generalizability of this study’s results should be considered with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our study provides reassuring evidence that the use of 12–30 days OCP for cycle programming, prior to IVF, does not decrease the chance of live birth and cumulative live birth rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding was used for this study. This research was performed under the auspices of ‘Càtedra d’Investigació en Obstetrícia I Ginecologia’ of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Hospital Universitario Dexeus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. The authors report no conflict of interest associated with the current study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NA


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document