No Difference in Cycle Pregnancy Rate and in Cumulative Live-Birth Rate Between Women With Surgically Treated Minimal to Mild Endometriosis and Women With Unexplained Infertility After Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation and Intrauterine Insemination

2007 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-111
Author(s):  
Erika Werbrouck ◽  
Carl Spiesens ◽  
Christel Meuleman ◽  
Thomas D???Hooghe
2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-57
Author(s):  
Fortunato Genovese ◽  
Maria Cristina Teodoro ◽  
Gabriella Rubbino ◽  
Marco Antonio Palumbo ◽  
Giuseppe Zarbo

Purpose Even at the early stage endometriosis, may be associated with infertility, whose treatment, which is not always straightforward, is often controversial. This study intends to determine the effectiveness of laparoscopic ablation of lesions at an early stage. Methods The charts of 250 women suffering from infertility, admitted from July 1998 to December 2008 to the obstetric and gynecologic departments of Vittorio Emanuele and Santo Bambino hospitals in Catania were reviewed. Among these women, 97 patients (38.8%) affected by stage 1 and 2 endometriosis were found and divided into 2 groups of 53 (A) and 44 (B) patients. According to the approach of the surgeon, group A patients underwent laparoscopic ablation of endometriotic lesions with or without adesiolysis, while group B patients only had diagnostic laparoscopy. Cumulative pregnancy rate, cumulative live birth rate, monthly fertility rate and outcome of pregnancies (miscarriages and live birth), developed within the first year soon after laparoscopy, were determined in each group. Results This study shows that, according to the literature, laparoscopic systematic destruction of minimal and mild stage endometriotic lesions, improves the cumulative pregnancy rate (49.1% in group A versus 22.7% in group B) and cumulative live birth rate (39.6% in group A versus 18.2% in group B) in selected patients. However, this type of intervention, by itself, does not normalize the monthly fertility rate that remains low in both groups (4.1% in group A and 1.9% in group B). Conclusions This study suggests that laparoscopic treatment of minimal-mild endometriotic lesions is a valid therapeutic option because it improves the fertility rate, even if it does not completely resolve the reduced fertility.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ansu Tu ◽  
Lihong Geng ◽  
Ying Zhong

Abstract PurposeThe suppression of luteinizing hormone (LH) in patients undergoing gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) pituitary down-regulation may cause LH deficiency which may impact follicular development. However, little is known about effect of LH adding in patients with LH over-suppression. This study to investigate the effects of different gonadotropins on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) in the patients with LH over-suppression after GnRH-a pituitary down-regulation. MethodsThis retrospective study used propensity score-matching methodology to compare CLBR, as the primary endpoint, in the patients with LH over-suppression after different GnRH-a pituitary down-regulation regimens, including recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) combined with recombinant LH (rLH), or using rFSH alone, or human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) alone. The secondary endpoints included biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate in fresh embryo transfer cycles. ResultsA total of 88 patients were enrolled after matching: 22 patients in the rFSH+rLH group, 44 in the rFSH group, and 22 in the hMG group. The CLBR of the rFSH+rLH group was significantly higher than that of the rFSH and hMG groups (19/22, 86.4% vs. 25/44, 56.8%, P = 0.014; vs. 7/22, 31.8%, P < 0.001). Moreover, the rFSH group had a higher CLBR than the hMG group (P = 0.048). There were no significant differences in any of the secondary endpoints (all P > 0.05). ConclusionExogenous rLH supplementation achieved a higher CLBR than rFSH or hMG alone among patients with LH over-suppression; furthermore, rFSH alone was superior to hMG alone for CLBR.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haiyan Zhu ◽  
Chenqiong Zhao ◽  
Yibin Pan ◽  
Hanjing Zhou ◽  
Xiaoying Jin ◽  
...  

Study QuestionDoes dual trigger in freeze-all in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles improve the cumulative live-birth outcome compared with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger?Summary AnswerDual trigger for final follicular maturation improves the cumulative pregnancy and live-birth rates compared with hCG trigger in freeze-all IVF/ICSI cycles.What Is Known AlreadyDual trigger could increase the numbers of oocytes and mature oocytes and improve pregnancy rates.Study Design, Size, DurationThis retrospective cohort analysis included data from 4438 freeze-all IVF/ICSI cycles between January 2012 and December 2017.Participants/Materials, Setting, MethodsWomen aged 20−49 years who underwent ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval for autologous IVF/ICSI with a freeze-all policy in our centre were enrolled. Data on number of oocytes retrieved, number of mature oocytes, clinical pregnancy rate, live-birth rate, cumulative pregnancy rate, and cumulative live-birth rate (CLBR) were assessed and compared between patients who underwent a dual trigger and hCG trigger. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify and adjust for factors known to independently affect the CLBR.Main Results and the Role of ChanceA total of 4438 IVF/ICSI cycles were analyzed, including 1445 cycles with single hCG trigger and 2993 cycles with dual trigger. The cumulative biochemical pregnancy rate (60.8% vs. 68.1%, P&lt;0.001; odds ratio (OR): 0.727; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.638–0.828), cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (52.9% vs. 58.5%, P&lt;0.001; OR: 0.796; 95%CI: 0.701–0.903), and CLBR (44.3% vs. 50.5%, P&lt;0.001; OR: 0.781; 95%CI: 0.688–10.886) were all significantly lower in the hCG-trigger group compared with the dual-trigger group. The clinical pregnancy rate (48.2% vs. 58.2%, P=0.002; OR: 0.829; 95%CI: 0.737–0.934) and embryo implantation rate (34.4% vs. 38.9%, P&lt;0.001; OR: 0.823; 95%CI: 0.750–0.903) in each transfer cycle were also significantly lower in the hCG-trigger group compared with the dual-trigger group. After controlling for all potential confounding variables, the trigger method was identified as an independent factor affecting the CLBR. The OR and 95%CI for hCG trigger were 0.780 and 0.641–0.949 (P=0.013).Limitations, Reasons for CautionThe data used to analyse the effect of dual trigger on cumulative pregnancy and live-birth outcomes were retrospective, and the results may thus have been subject to inherent biases. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are required to verify the beneficial effects of dual trigger.Wider Implications of the FindingsDual trigger had a positive effect on CLBRs, suggesting that it could be used as a routine trigger method in freeze-all cycles.Study Funding/Competing Interest(s)This study was supported by grants from National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFC1004800), the Natural Science Program of Zhejiang (LY19H040009), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81601236). No authors have competing interests to declare.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianluca Gennarelli ◽  
Andrea Carosso ◽  
Stefano Canosa ◽  
Claudia Filippini ◽  
Sara Cesarano ◽  
...  

This study compared the cumulative live birth rates following Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) versus conventional in vitro fertilization (cIVF) in women aged 40 years or more and unexplained infertility. A cohort of 685 women undergoing either autologous conventional IVF or ICSI was retrospectively analyzed. The effects of conventional IVF or ICSI procedure on cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates were evaluated in univariate and in multivariable analysis. In order to reduce potential differences between women undergoing either IVF or ICSI and to obtain unbiased estimation of the treatment effect, propensity score was estimated. ICSI was performed in 307 couples (ICSI group), whereas cIVF was performed in 297 couples (cIVF group), resulting in 45 and 43 live deliveries, respectively. No differences were observed in morphological embryo quality, in the number of cleavage stage embryos, in the number of transferred embryos, and in the number of vitrified embryos. As for the clinical outcome, no differences were observed in pregnancy rate, cumulative pregnancy rate, live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and abortion rate. The present results suggest that ICSI is not associated with increased likelihood of a live birth for unexplained, non-male factor infertility, in women aged 40 years or more.


BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042395
Author(s):  
Simone Cornelisse ◽  
Liliana Ramos ◽  
Brigitte Arends ◽  
Janneke J Brink-van der Vlugt ◽  
Jan Peter de Bruin ◽  
...  

IntroductionIn vitro fertilisation (IVF) has evolved as an intervention of choice to help couples with infertility to conceive. In the last decade, a strategy change in the day of embryo transfer has been developed. Many IVF centres choose nowadays to transfer at later stages of embryo development, for example, transferring embryos at blastocyst stage instead of cleavage stage. However, it still is not known which embryo transfer policy in IVF is more efficient in terms of cumulative live birth rate (cLBR), following a fresh and the subsequent frozen–thawed transfers after one oocyte retrieval. Furthermore, studies reporting on obstetric and neonatal outcomes from both transfer policies are limited.Methods and analysisWe have set up a multicentre randomised superiority trial in the Netherlands, named the Three or Fivetrial. We plan to include 1200 women with an indication for IVF with at least four embryos available on day 2 after the oocyte retrieval. Women are randomly allocated to either (1) control group: embryo transfer on day 3 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 3 or 4, or (2) intervention group: embryo transfer on day 5 and cryopreservation of supernumerary good-quality embryos on day 5 or 6. The primary outcome is the cLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include LBR following fresh transfer, multiple pregnancy rate and time until pregnancy leading a live birth. We will also assess the obstetric and neonatal outcomes, costs and patients’ treatment burden.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Central Committee on Research involving Human Subjects in the Netherlands in June 2018 (CCMO NL 64060.000.18). The results of this trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed and in open access journals.Trial registration numberNetherlands Trial Register (NL 6857).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document