scholarly journals Live birth rates in different subgroups of poor ovarian responders according to Bologna criteria and POSEIDON group classification

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehri Mashayekhy ◽  
Forouzan Barabi ◽  
Arezoo Arabipoor ◽  
Zahra Zolfaghari
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Group Classification ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Live Births ◽  
Bologna Criteria ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Poor Ovarian Responders

Abstract Background Recently, some studies evaluated the live births rates (LBRs) in two poor ovarian responders (POR) classification methods separately, but present study was designed to compare the LBRs among different groups of patients on the basis of Bologna criteria or POSIEDON group classifications and find the important predictive factors for LBR in patients with POR. Methods In this cross-sectional study, the database containing clinical and laboratory information on infertility treatment cycles were evaluated from December 2015 to December 2017 and all the patients with at least one POR after standard controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) during IVF/ICSI cycles were evaluated. The eligible patients were enrolled and divided into five and four groups according to the Bologna criteria and POSEIDON groups’ classifications, respectively. Results 812 patients with POR diagnosis were investigated which in overall 517 of them had embryo transfer in the last treatment cycle (63.6%) and total clinical pregnancy rate 19.3% (100 cases) and live birth rates 16.1% (86 cases) were found. When the patients were grouped on the Basis of the POSEIDON classification, the highest LBR was observed in the POSEIDON group III. On the other hand, according to the Bologna criteria, 41 patients were not included in any group, and in the analysis of cycle outcome, the LBR in the Bologna group II was more than other groups. The multivariable regression analysis revealed that the significant independent variables remained in the model as important predictive factor for live births in the study population were the number and quality of the transferred embryos transmission (good and excellent quality), and the POSSIDON classification group (POSSIDON group III). Conclusions On the basis of present results, the POSEIDON group classification could be more comprehensive and practical than Bologna criteria for diagnosing and categorizing POR patients. In addition, it was found the number and quality of transferred embryos were the most important prognostic factor for live birth in POR patients; therefore we suggest to consider COH protocols with a freezing embryos strategy, and the collection of more good quality embryos to improve the probability of a live birth.

scholarly journals Live birth rates in different subgroups of poor ovarian responders according to Bologna criteria and POSEIDON group classification

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehri Mashayekhy ◽  
Arezoo Arabipoor ◽  
Forouzan Barabi ◽  
Zahra Zolfaghari
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Group Classification ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Live Births ◽  
Bologna Criteria ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Poor Ovarian Responders

Abstract Background Recently, some studies evaluated the live births rates (LBRs) in two poor ovarian responders (POR) classification methods separately, but present study was designed to compare the LBRs among different groups of patients on the basis of Bologna criteria or POSIEDON group classifications and find the important predictive factors for LBR in patients with POR.Methods In this cross-sectional study, the database containing clinical and laboratory information on infertility treatment cycles were evaluated from December 2015 to December 2017 and all the patients with at least one POR after standard controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) during IVF/ICSI cycles were evaluated. The eligible patients were enrolled and divided into five and four groups according to the Bologna criteria and POSEIDON groups’ classifications, respectively.Results 812 patients with POR diagnosis were investigated which in overall 517 of them had embryo transfer in the last treatment cycle (63.6%) and total clinical pregnancy rate 19.3% (100 cases) and live birth rates 16.1% (86 cases) were found. When the patients were grouped on the Basis of the POSEIDON classification, the highest LBR was observed in the POSEIDON group III. On the other hand, according to the Bologna criteria, 41 patients were not included in any group, and in the analysis of cycle outcome, the LBR in the Bologna group II was more than other groups. The multivariable regression analysis revealed that the significant independent variables remained in the model as important predictive factor for live births in the study population were the number and quality of the transferred embryos transmission (good and excellent quality), and the POSSIDON classification group (POSSIDON group III).ConclusionsOn the basis of present results, the POSEIDON group classification could be more comprehensive and practical than Bologna criteria for diagnosing and categorizing POR patients. In addition, it was found the number and quality of transferred embryos were the most important prognostic factor for live birth in POR patients; therefore we suggest to consider COH protocols with a freezing embryos strategy, and the collection of more good quality embryos to improve the probability of a live birth.

scholarly journals Live birth rates in different subgroups of poor ovarian responders according to Bologna and POSEIDON group classification criteria

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehri Mashayekhy ◽  
Arezoo Arabipoor ◽  
Forouzan Barabi ◽  
Zahra Zolfaghari
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Treatment Cycle ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Group Classification ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Births ◽  
Bologna Criteria ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Group 3

Abstract Background: Live birth rates (LBRs) have been separately evaluated in two poor ovarian responder (POR) classification methods. We designed the present study to compare the LBRs according to Bologna criteria or Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) group classifications to determine the important predictive factors for LBR in patients with POR. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated a database that contained clinical and laboratory information on infertility treatment cycles of all patients with at least one POR after standard controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) during in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles from December 2015 to December 2017. The eligible data were collected and the subjects divided into five groups according to Bologna criteria and four groups according to POSEIDON group classification. Results: We assessed 812 patients diagnosed with POR; overall, 517 underwent embryo transfer (ET) during the last treatment cycle (63.6%). The results indicated a total clinical pregnancy rate of 19.3% (100 cases) and LBR of 16.1% (86 cases). According to Bologna criteria, 41 patients were not included in any group. Analysis of treatment cycle outcome showed that patients classified as Bologna group II had a higher LBR than the other groups. In terms of POSEIDON classification, all of the patients could be classified into groups. Patients in POSEIDON group 3 had the highest LBR. According to multivariable regression analysis, the significant independent variables that remained in the model as important predictive factors for live births were the number and quality (good and excellent) of the embryos transferred, and POSEIDON group 3 classification. Conclusion: The results indicated that the POSEIDON group classification could be more comprehensive and practical than Bologna criteria for diagnosing and categorizing POR patients. In addition, we noted that the number and quality of transferred embryos were the most important prognostic factors for live births in POR patients. Therefore, we suggest that clinicians consider COH protocols that have a freezing embryo strategy and the collection of more good quality embryos to improve the probability of a live birth.

scholarly journals Live birth rates in the different combinations of the Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders: a validation study

2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 931-937 ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio La Marca ◽  
Valentina Grisendi ◽  
Simone Giulini ◽  
Giovanna Sighinolfi ◽  
Alessandra Tirelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Validation Study ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Bologna Criteria ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Poor Ovarian Responders

scholarly journals Heterogeneity Among Poor Ovarian Responders According to Bologna Criteria Results in Diverging Cumulative Live Birth Rates

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessia Romito ◽  
Erlisa Bardhi ◽  
Joaquin Errazuriz ◽  
Christophe Blockeel ◽  
Samuel Santos-Ribeiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Bologna Criteria ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth ◽  
Poor Ovarian Responders

scholarly journals Live Birth and Cumulative Live Birth Rates in Expected Poor Ovarian Responders Defined by the Bologna Criteria Following IVF/ICSI Treatment

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e0119149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce Chai ◽  
Vivian Chi-Yan Lee ◽  
Tracy Wing-Yee Yeung ◽  
Raymond Wun-Hang Li ◽  
Pak-Chung Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Bologna Criteria ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth ◽  
Poor Ovarian Responders

scholarly journals Correction: Live Birth and Cumulative Live Birth Rates in Expected Poor Ovarian Responders Defined by the Bologna Criteria Following IVF/ICSI Treatment

PLoS ONE ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e0131334
Author(s):  
Joyce Chai ◽  
Vivian Chi-Yan Lee ◽  
Tracy Wing-Yee Yeung ◽  
Hang Wun Raymond Li ◽  
Pak-Chung Ho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Bologna Criteria ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth ◽  
Poor Ovarian Responders

scholarly journals Live birth rates in various subgroups of poor ovarian responders fulfilling the Bologna criteria

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 639-644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gurkan Bozdag ◽  
Mehtap Polat ◽  
Irem Yarali ◽  
Hakan Yarali
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Bologna Criteria ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Poor Ovarian Responders

scholarly journals Time associations between U.S. birth rates and add-Ons to IVF practice between 2005–2016

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Norbert Gleicher ◽  
Lyka Mochizuki ◽  
David H. Barad
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Single Embryo Transfer ◽  
Additional Treatment ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Preimplantation Genetic Testing ◽  
Vitro Fertilization ◽  
Live Births ◽  
Live Birth Rates

AbstractUntil 2010, the National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System (NASS) report, published annually by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), demonstrated almost constantly improving live birth rates following fresh non-donor (fnd) in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Almost unnoticed by profession and public, by 2016 they, however, reached lows not seen since 1996–1997. We here attempted to understand underlying causes for this decline. This study used publicly available IVF outcome data, reported by the CDC annually under Congressional mandate, involving over 90% of U.S. IVF centers and over 95% of U.S. IVF cycles. Years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2016 served as index years, representing respectively, 27,047, 30,425, 21,771 and 19,137 live births in fnd IVF cycles. Concomitantly, the study associated timelines for introduction of new add-ons to IVF practice with changes in outcomes of fnd IVF cycles. Median female age remained at 36.0 years during the study period and center participation was surprisingly stable, thereby confirming reasonable phenotype stability. Main outcome measures were associations of specific IVF practice changes with declines in live IVF birth rates. Time associations were observed with increased utilization of “all-freeze” cycles (embryo banking), mild ovarian stimulation protocols, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) and increasing utilization of elective single embryo transfer (eSET). Among all add-ons, PGT-A, likely, affected fndIVF most profoundly. Though associations cannot denote causation, they can be hypothesis-generating. Here presented time-associations are compelling, though some of observed pregnancy and live birth loss may have been compensated by increases in frozen-thawed cycles and consequential pregnancies and live births not shown here. Pregnancies in frozen-thawed cycles, however, represent additional treatment cycles, time delays and additional costs. IVF live birth rates not seen since 1996–1997, and a likely continuous downward trend in U.S. IVF outcomes, therefore, mandate a reversal of current outcome trends, whatever ultimately the causes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document