Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-nlvjk Total loading time: 0.983 Render date: 2022-05-17T18:51:35.403Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Section VIII - Ovarian Stimulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 November 2021

Roy Homburg
Affiliation:
Homerton University Hospital, London
Adam H. Balen
Affiliation:
Leeds Centre for Reproductive Medicine
Robert F. Casper
Affiliation:
Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

van Rooij, IA, Broekmans, FJ, te Velde, ER, et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3065–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broer, SL, van Disseldorp, J, Broeze, KA, et al. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(1):2636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broer, SL, Dólleman, M, van Disseldorp, J, et al. Prediction of an excessive response in in vitro fertilization from patient characteristics and ovarian reserve tests and comparison in subgroups: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(2):420–9.e7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, RA, Anckaert, E, Bosch, E, et al. Prospective study into the value of the automated elecsys antimüllerian hormone assay for the assessment of the ovarian growing follicle pool. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):1074–80.e4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, SM, Klein, BM, Arce, JC. Comparison of antimüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as predictor of ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation in good-prognosis patients at individual fertility clinics in two multicenter trials. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):923–30.e1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, AN, Witjes, H, Gordon, K, Mannaerts, B. Predictive factors of ovarian response and clinical outcome after IVF/ICSI following a rFSH/GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive pre-treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:3413–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broer, SL, van Disseldorp, J, Broeze, KA, et al. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(1): 2636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
liodromiti, S, Anderson, RA, Nelson, SM. Technical and performance characteristics of anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count as biomarkers of ovarian response. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(6): 698710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudshoorn, SC, van Tilborg, TC, Hamdine, O, et al. Ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: what does serum FSH say? Hum Reprod. 2017;32(8): 1701–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lan, VT, Linh, NK, Tuong, HM, Wong, PC, Howles, CM. Anti-mullerian hormone versus antral follicle count for defining the starting dose of FSH. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;27(4): 390–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magnusson, A, Nilsson, L, Olerod, G, Thurin-Kjellberg, A, Bergh, C. The addition of anti-mullerian hormone in an algorithm for individualized hormone dosage did not improve the prediction of ovarian response – a randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(4): 811–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensen, SF, Wilkinson, J, Leijdekkers, JA, et al. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2018(2).Google Scholar
Leijdekkers, JA, Eijkemans, MJC, van Tilborg, TC, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(6): 1030–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Inany, HG, Youssef, MA, Aboulghar, M, et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;CD001750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarlatzis, B, Bosdou, J. Elimination of OHSS by GnRH agonist and freezing embryos. In: Rizk, B, Gerris, J (eds). Complications and Outcomes of Assisted Reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 149–63.Google Scholar
Bosdou, JK, Venetis, CA, Tarlatzis, BC, et al. Higher probability of live-birth in high, but not normal, responders after first frozen-embryo transfer in a freeze-only cycle strategy compared to fresh-embryo transfer: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:491505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambalk, CB, Banga, FR, Huirne, JA, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:560–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, EM, Griesinger, G, Venetis, CA. GnRH antagonists vs. long GnRH agonists in IVF: significant flaws in a meta-analysis lead to invalid conclusions. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24:242–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolibianakis, EM, Venetis, CA, Kalogeropoulou, L, Papanikolaou, E, Tarlatzis, BC. Fixed versus flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration in in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:558–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambalk, CB, Banga, FR, Huirne, JA, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Hum Reprod Update. 2017 Sept 1;23(5):560–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braakhekke, M, Kamphuis, EI, Dancet, EA, Mol, F, van der Veen, F, Mol, BW. Ongoing pregnancy qualifies best as the primary outcome measure of choice in trials in reproductive medicine: an opinion paper. Fertil Steril. 2014 May;101(5):1203–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toftager, M, Bogstad, J, Bryndorf, T, et al. Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:1253–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, E, Broer, S, Griesinger, G, et al. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod Open. 2020 May 1;2020(2).Google ScholarPubMed
van den Wijngaard, L, van Wely, M, Dancet, EA, et al. Patients’ preferences for gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogs in in vitro fertilization. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2014;78:1621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunkara, SK, Rittenberg, V, Raine-Fenning, N, Bhattacharya, S, Zamora, J, Coomarasamy, A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1768–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensen, SF, Wilkinson, J, Mol, BWJ, La, MA, Torrance, H, Broekmans, FJ. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Tilborg, TC, Torrance, HL, Oudshoorn, SC, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: the predicted poor responder. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(12):2496–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ESHRE Reproductive Endocrinology Guideline Group. Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. 2019.Google Scholar
Arce, JC, Andersen, AN, Fernandez-Sanchez, M, et al. Ovarian response to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone: a randomized, antimullerian hormone-stratified, dose response trial in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(6):1633–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Tilborg, TC, Torrance, HI, Oudshoorn, SC, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: the predicted poor responder. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2496–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lensen, SF, Wilkinson, J, Leijdekkers, JA, et al. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;2:CD012693.Google Scholar
Polyzos, NP, Drakopoulos, P, Parra, J, 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 approximately 15,000 women. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:661–70.e661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, KM, van Wely, M, Moi, F, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;3:CD011184.Google ScholarPubMed
Oudshoorn, SC, van Tilborg, TC, Eijkemans, MJC, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 2: the predicted hyper responder. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:2506–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labarta, E, Bosch, E, Alama, P, et al. Moderate ovarian stimulation does not increase the incidence of human embryo chromosomal abnormalities in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97:E1987–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunkara, SK, LaMarca, A, Polyzos, NP, et al. Live birth and perinatal outcomes following stimulated and unstimulated IVF: analysis of over two decades of a nationwide data. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(10):2261–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nargund, G, Fauser, BCJM, Macklon, NS, et al. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(11):2801–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polyzos, NP, Drakopoulos, P, Parra, J, 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 multicentre multinational analysis including 15,000 women. Fert Steril. 2018;4:662–9.Google Scholar
Van Tilborg, TC, Torrance, HL, Oudshoorn, SC, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: The predicted poor responder. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(12):2496–505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hong, KH, Franasiak, JM, Weiner, MM, et al. Embryonic aneuploidy rates are equivalent in natural cycles and gonadotropin-stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:670–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nargund, G, Fauser, BCJM, Macklon, NS, et al. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2801–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeh, JS, Steward, RG, Dude, AM, et al. Pregnancy rates in donor oocyte cycles compared to similar autologous in vitro fertilization cycles: an analysis of 26,457 fresh cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:967–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunkara, S, La Marca, A, Seed, PT, et al. Increased risk of preterm birth and low birthweight with very high number of oocytes following IVF: an analysis of 65,868 singleton live birth outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(6):1473–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baart, EB, Martini, E, Eijkemans, MJ, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:980–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vermey, BG, Chua, SJ, Zafarmand, MH, et al. Is there an association between oocyte number and embryo quality? A systematic review and meta-analysis. RBMO. 2019;39:751–63.Google Scholar
Polyzos, NP, Drakopoulos, P, Parra, J, 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smeltzer, S, Acharya, K, Truong, T, et al. Clinical pregnancy (CP) and live birth (LB) increase significantly with each additional fertilized oocyte up to 9 and CP and LB declines after that: an analysis of 15,803 first fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles from the SART registry. Fertil Steril. 2019;112:520–6.Google Scholar
Lainas, TG, Sfontouris, IA, Venetis, CA, et al. Live birth rates after modified natural cycle compared with high-dose FSH stimulation using GnRH antagonists in poor responders Human Reprod. 2015;30:2321–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Comparison of pregnancy rates for poor responders using IVF with mild ovarian stimulation versus conventional IVF: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(6):993–9.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×