Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T09:56:33.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Section 6 - Procedures before, during, and after Ovarian Stimulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2022

Edited by
Mohamed Aboulghar  and
Botros Rizk
Mohamed Aboulghar
Affiliation:
University of Cairo IVF Centre
Botros Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Ovarian Stimulation , pp. 265 - 318
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

References

Stewart, EA, Cookson, CL, Gandolfo, RA, et al. Epidemiology of uterine fibroids: a systematic review. BJOG 2017;124(10):1501–1512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dueholm, M, Lundorf, E, Hansen, ES, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and transvaginal ultrasonography in the diagnosis, mapping, and measurement of uterine myomas. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186(3):409–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Becker, E Jr., Lev-Toaff, AS, Kaufman, EP, et al. The added value of transvaginal sonohysterography over transvaginal sonography alone in women with known or suspected leiomyoma. J Ultrasound Med 2002;21:237–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, MG, Critchley, HOD, Fraser, IS; FIGO Menstrual Disorders Committee. The two FIGO systems for normal and abnormal uterine bleeding symptoms and classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in reproductive years: 2018 revisions. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2018;143(3):393–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sylvestre, C. A prospective study to evaluate the efficacy of two- and three-dimensional sonohysterography in women with intrauterine lesions. Fertil Steril 2003;79:1222–1225.Google Scholar
Van der Veen, F. Fibroids and IVF: retrospective studies or randomised clinical trials? BJOG 2017;124(4):622.Google Scholar
Rackow, BW, Taylor, HS. Submucosal uterine leiomyomas have a global effect on molecular determinants of endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril 2010;93(6):2027–2034.Google Scholar
Wang, X, Chen, L, Wang, H, et al. The impact of noncavity-distorting intramural fibroids on the efficacy of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: an updated meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:8924703.Google Scholar
Carranza-Mamane, B, Havelock, J, Hemmings, R. The management of uterine fibroids in women with otherwise unexplained infertility. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2015;37(3):277–285.Google Scholar
Bazot, M, Cortez, A, Darai, E, et al. Ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of adenomyosis: correlation with histopathology. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2427–2433.Google Scholar
Van den Bosch, T, Dueholm, M, Leone, FPG, et al. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe sonographic features of myometrium and uterine masses: a consensus opinion from the Morphological Uterus Sonographic Assessment (MUSA) group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;46:284–298.Google Scholar
Vercellini, P, Consonni, D, Dridi, D, et al. Uterine adenomyosis and in vitro fertilization outcome: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Hum Reprod 2014;29:964–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mavrelos, D, Holland, TK, Khalaf, Y, et al. The impact of adenomyosis on the outcome of IVF-embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2017;35(5):549–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Younes, G, Tulandi, T. Effects of adenomyosis on in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2017;108(3):483.e3–490.e3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsui, KH, Lee, FK, Seow, KM, et al. Conservative surgical treatment of adenomyosis to improve fertility: controversial values, indications, complications, and pregnancy outcomes. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2015;54:635–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, YY, Jayaprakasan, K, Zamora, J, et al. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systemic review. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17(6):761–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimbizis, GF, Gordts, S, Di Spiezio Sardo, A, et al. The ESHRE/ESGE consensus on the classification of female genital tract congenital anomalies. Hum Reprod 2013;28(8):2032–2044.Google Scholar
Corroenne, R, Legendre, G, May-Panloup, P, et al. Surgical treatment of septate uterus in cases of primary infertility and before assisted reproductive technologies. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2018;47(9):413–418.Google Scholar
Rikken, JFW, Kowalik, CR, Emanuel, MH, et al. The randomised uterine septum transection trial (TRUST): design and protocol. BMC Womens Health 2018;18(1):163.Google Scholar
Timmerman, D, Verguts, J, Konstantinovic, ML, et al. The pedicle artery sign based on sonography with color Doppler imaging can replace second-stage tests in women with abnormal vaginal bleeding. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2003;22:166–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
La Sala, GB, Blasi, I, Gallinelli, A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of sonohysterography and transvaginal sonography as compared with hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy: a prospective study. Minerva Ginecol 2011;63(5):421–427.Google Scholar
Nieuwenhuis, LL, Hermans, FJ, Bij de Vaate, AJM, et al. Three-dimensional saline infusion sonography compared to two-dimensional saline infusion sonography for the diagnosis of focal intracavitary lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;5:CD011126.Google Scholar
Raine-Fenning, NJ. The interobserver reliability of ovarian volume measurement is improved with three dimensional ultrasound, but dependent upon technique. Ultrasound Med Biol 2003;29:1685–1690.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coelho Neto, MA, Ludwin, A, Borrell, A, et al. Counting ovarian antral follicles by ultrasound: a practical guide. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018;51(1):10–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raine-Fenning, N, Jayaprakasan, K, Clewes, J, et al. SonoAVC: a novel method of automatic volume calculation. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008;31:691–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peres Fagundes, PA, Chapon, R, Olsen, PR, et al. Evaluation of three-dimensional SonoAVC ultrasound for antral follicle count in infertile women: its agreement with conventional two-dimensional ultrasound and serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2017;15(1):96.Google Scholar
Lee, Y, Kim, TH, Park, JK, et al. Predictive value of antral follicle count and serum anti-Müllerian hormone: which is better for live birth prediction in patients aged over 40 with their first IVF treatment? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;221:151–155.Google Scholar
Mutlu, MF, Erdem, M, Erdem, A, et al. Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-Müllerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30(5):657–665.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashrafi, M, Hemat, M, Arabipoor, A, et al. Predictive values of anti-müllerian hormone, antral follicle count and ovarian response prediction index (ORPI) for assisted reproductive technology outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol 2017;37(1):82–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome 2018. ESHRE guidelines.Google Scholar
Timmerman, D, Valentin, L, Bourne, TH, et al., International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Terms, definitions and measurements to describe the sonographic features of adnexal tumors: a consensus opinion from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) Group. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2000;16:500–505.Google Scholar
Sokalska, A, Timmerman, D, Testa, AC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal ultrasound examination for assigning a specific diagnosis to adnexal masses. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009;34:462–470.Google Scholar
Guerriero, S, Ajossa, S, Garau, N, et al. Diagnosis of pelvic adhesions in patients with endometrioma: the role of transvaginal ultrasonography. Fertil Steril 2009;94:742–746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gürel, H, Gürel, SA. Ovarian cystic teratoma with a pathognomonic appearance of multiple floating balls: a case report and investigation of common characteristics of the cases in the literature. Fertil Steril 2008;90:2008.e17–2008.e19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eryılmaz, OG, Sarıkaya, E, Aksakal, FN, et al. Ovarian cyst formation following gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist administration decreases the oocyte quality in IVF cycles. Balkan Med J 2012;29(2):197–200.Google Scholar
Jain, KA. Sonographic spectrum of hemorrhagic ovarian cysts. J Ultrasound Med 2002;21:879–886.Google Scholar
Geomini, PM, Coppus, SF, Kluivers, KB, et al. Is three-dimensional ultrasonography of additional value in the assessment of adnexal masses? Gynecol Oncol 2007;106:153–159.Google Scholar
Jokubkiene, L, Sladkevicius, P, Valentin, L. Does three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound help in discrimination between benign and malignant ovarian masses? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007;29:215–225.Google Scholar
Strandell, A, Lindhard, A, Waldenström, U, Thorburn, J. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: cumulative results after salpingectomy in a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2001;16:2403–2410.Google Scholar
Xu, B, Zhang, Q, Zhao, J, et al. Pregnancy outcome of in vitro fertilization after Essure and laparoscopic management of hydrosalpinx: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2017;108(1):84.e5–95.e5.Google Scholar
Amer, A. Three-dimensional versus two-dimensional ultrasound measurement of follicular volume: are they comparable? Arch Gynecol Obstet 2003;268:155–157.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, A, Nagar, R, Oron, G, et al. Fertility treatment outcomes after follicle tracking with standard 2-dimensional sonography versus 3-dimensional sonography-based automated volume count: prospective study. J Ultrasound Med 2018;37(4):859–866.Google Scholar
Vural, F, Vural, B, Doğer, E, et al. Perifollicular blood flow and its relationship with endometrial vascularity, follicular fluid EG-VEGF, IGF-1, and inhibin-a levels and IVF outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016; 33(10):1355–1362.Google Scholar
Huyghe, S, Verest, A, Thijssen, A, et al. The prognostic value of perifollicular blood flow in the outcome after assisted reproduction: a systematic review. Facts Views Vis Obgyn 2017;9(3):153–156.Google Scholar
Kim, A, Jung, H, Choi, WJ, et al. Detection of endometrial and subendometrial vasculature on the day of embryo transfer and prediction of pregnancy during fresh in vitro fertilization cycles. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2014;53(3):360–365.Google Scholar
Zhang, T, He, Y, Wang, Y, et al. The role of three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound parameters measured on hCG day in the prediction of pregnancy during in vitro fertilization treatment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016;203:66–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

References

Balasubramanian, R, Dwyer, A, Seminara, SB, et al. Human GnRH deficiency: a unique disease model to unravel the ontogeny of GnRH neurons. Neuroendocrinology 2010;92:81–99.Google Scholar
Belchetz, PE, Plant, TM, Nakai, Y, et al. Hypophysial responses to continuous and intermittent delivery of hypothalamic gonadotropin-releasing hormone. Science 1978;202:631–633.Google Scholar
Wetsel, WC, Valenca, MM, Merchenthaler, I, et al. Intrinsic pulsatile secretory activity of immortalized luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone-secreting neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1992;89:4149–4153.Google Scholar
Richards, JS. Genetics of ovulation. Semin Reprod Med 2007;25(4):235–242.Google Scholar
Duncan, WC. The human corpus luteum: remodeling during luteolysis and maternal recognition of pregnancy. Rev Reprod 2000;5:12–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Itskovitz, J, Boldes, R, Levron, J, et al. Induction of preovulatory luteinizing hormone surge and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Fertil Steril 1991;56:213–220.Google Scholar
Segal, S, Casper, RF. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus human chorionic gonadotropin for triggering follicular maturation in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1992;57(6):1254–1258.Google Scholar
Aboulghar, MA, Mansour, RT. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: classifications and critical analysis of preventive measures. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9(3):275–289.Google Scholar
Macklon, NS, Stouffer, RL, Giudice, LC, et al. The science behind 25 years of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Endocr Rev 2006;27(2):170–207.Google Scholar
Engmann, L, Claudio, B, Humaidan, P. GnRH agonist trigger for the induction of oocyte maturation in GnRH antagonist IVF cycles: a SWOT analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2016;32(3):274–285.Google Scholar
Chandrasekher, YA, Hutchison, JS, Zelinski-Wooten, MB, et al. Initiation of periovulatory events in primate follicles using recombinant and native human luteinizing hormone to mimic the midcycle gonadotropin surge. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1994;79(1):298–306.Google Scholar
Chandrasekher, YA, Brenner, RM, Molskness, TA, et al. Titrating luteinizing hormone surge requirements for ovulatory changes in primate follicles. II. Progesterone receptor expression in luteinizing granulosa cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1991;73(3):584–589.Google Scholar
Gonen, Y, Balakier, H, Powell, W, et al. Use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist to trigger follicular maturation for in vitro fertilization. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1990;71(4):918–922.Google Scholar
Oktay, K, Türkçüoğlu, I, Rodriguez-Wallberg, KA. GnRH agonist trigger for women with breast cancer undergoing fertility preservation by aromatase inhibitor/FSH stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20(6):783–788.Google Scholar
Andersen, CY, Leonardsen, L, Ulloa-Aguirre, A, et al. FSH-induced resumption of meiosis in mouse oocytes: effect of different isoforms. Mol Hum Reprod 1999;5(8):726–731.Google Scholar
Fraser, HM. Regulation of the ovarian follicular vasculature. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2006;4:18Google Scholar
Molskness, TA, Stouffer, RL, Burry, KA, et al. Circulating levels of total angiopoietin-2 and the soluble Tie-2 receptor in women during ovarian stimulation and early gestation. Fertil Steril 2006;86:1531–1533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cerrillo, M, Rodriguez, S, Mayoral, M, et al. Differential regulation of VEGF after final oocyte maturation with GnRH agonist versus hCG: a rationale for OHSS reduction. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1526–1528.Google Scholar
Bodri, D, Sunkara, SK, Coomarasamy, A. Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists versus antagonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in oocyte donors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2011;95:164–169.Google Scholar
Engmann, L, DiLuigi, A, Schmidt, D, et al. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce oocyte maturation after cotreatment with GnRH antagonist in high-risk patients undergoing in vitro fertilization prevents the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a prospective randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril 2008;89:84–91.Google Scholar
Lewit, N, Kol, S, Manor, D, et al. Comparison of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues and human chorionic gonadotrophin for the induction of ovulation and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a case-control study. Hum Reprod 1996;11(7):1399–1402.Google Scholar
Fatemi, HM, Garcia-Velasco, J. Avoiding ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome with the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger. Fertil Steril 2015;103(4):870–873.Google Scholar
Mourad, S, Brown, J, Farquhar, C. Interventions for the prevention of OHSS in ART cycles: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;1:CD012103.Google Scholar
Gurbuz, AS, Gode, F, Ozcimen, N, et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist trigger and freeze-all strategy does not prevent severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a report of three cases. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;29(5):541–544.Google Scholar
Parneix, I, Emperaire, JC, Ruffie, A, et al. Comparison of different protocols of ovulation induction, by GnRH agonists and chorionic gonadotropin. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2001;29(2):100–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pabuccu, EG, Pabuccu, R, Caglar, GS, et al. Different gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist doses for the final oocyte maturation in high-responder patients undergoing in vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. J Hum Reprod Sci 2015;8(1):25–29.Google Scholar
Vuong, TN, Ho, MT, Ha, TD, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger in oocyte donors co-treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist: a dose-finding study. Fertil Steril 2016;105(2):356–363.Google Scholar
Lanzone, A, Fulghesu, AM, Apa, R, et al. LH surge induction by GnRH agonist at the time of ovulation. Gynecol Endocrinol 1989;3(3):213–220.Google Scholar
Awwad, JT, Hannoun, AB, Khalil, A, et al. Induction of final follicle maturation with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in women at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome undergoing gonadotropin stimulation and intrauterine insemination: proof-of-concept study. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2012;39(4):436–439.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P, Westergaard, LG, Mikkelsen, AL, et al. Levels of the epidermal growth factor-like peptide amphiregulin in follicular fluid reflect the mode of triggering ovulation: a comparison between gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist and urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin. Fertil Steril 2011;95(6):2034–2038.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humaidan, P, Ejdrup Bredkjaer, H, Bungum, L, et al. GnRH agonist (buserelin) or hCG for ovulation induction in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005;20(5):1213–1220.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist combined with a reduced dose of human chorionic gonadotropin for final oocyte maturation in fresh autologous cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2008;90(1):231–233.Google Scholar
Griesinger, G, Diedrich, K, Devroey, P, et al. GnRH agonist for triggering final oocyte maturation in the GnRH antagonist ovarian hyperstimulation protocol: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2005;12(2):159–168.Google Scholar
Krishna, D, Dhoble, S, Praneesh, G, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger is a better alternative than human chorionic gonadotropin in PCOS undergoing IVF cycles for an OHSS Free Clinic: a randomized control trial. J Hum Reprod Sci 2016;9(3):164–172.Google Scholar
Asada, Y, Itoi, F, Honnma, H, et al. Failure of GnRH agonist-triggered oocyte maturation: its cause and management. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30(4):581–585.Google Scholar
Kummer, NE, Feinn, RS, Griffin, DW, et al. Predicting successful induction of oocyte maturation after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) trigger. Hum Reprod 2012;28(1):152–159.Google Scholar
Chen, SL, Ye, DS, Chen, X, et al. Circulating luteinizing hormone level after triggering oocyte maturation with GnRH agonist may predict oocyte yield in flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. Hum Reprod 2012;27(5):1351–1356.Google Scholar
Meyer, L, Murphy, LA, Gumer, A, et al. Risk factors for a suboptimal response to gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger during in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2015;104(3):637–642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nevo, O, Eldar-Geva, T, Kol, S, et al. Lower levels of inhibin A and pro-alpha C during the luteal phase after triggering oocyte maturation with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus human chorionic gonadotropin. Fertil Steril 2003;79(5):1123–1128.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J, Hazout, A, Mendoza, C. Luteinizing hormone affects uterine receptivity independently of ovarian function. Reprod Biomed Online 2003;7(1):59–64.Google Scholar
Kolibianakis, EM, Schultze-Mosgau, A, Schroer, A, et al. A lower ongoing pregnancy rate can be expected when GnRH agonist is used for triggering final oocyte maturation instead of HCG in patients undergoing IVF with GnRH antagonists. Hum Reprod 2005;20(10):2887–2892.Google Scholar
Bermejo, A, Cerrillo, M, Ruiz-Alonso, M, et al. Impact of final oocyte maturation using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering and different luteal support protocols on endometrial gene expression. Fertil Steril 2014;101(1):138.e3–146.e3.Google Scholar
Engmann, L, Siano, L, Schmidt, D, et al. GnRH agonist to induce oocyte maturation during IVF in patients at high risk of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13(5):639–644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imbar, T, Kol, S, Lossos, F, et al. Reproductive outcome of fresh or frozen–thawed embryo transfer is similar in high-risk patients for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome using GnRH agonist for final oocyte maturation and intensive luteal support. Hum Reprod 2012;27(3):753–759.Google Scholar
Iliodromiti, S, Blockeel, C, Tremellen, KP, et al. Consistent high clinical pregnancy rates and low ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rates in high-risk patients after GnRH agonist triggering and modified luteal support: a retrospective multicentre study. Hum Reprod 2013;28(9):2529–2536.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P. Luteal phase rescue in high-risk OHSS patients by GnRHa triggering in combination with low-dose HCG: a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18(5):630–634.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P, Bredkjær, HE, Westergaard, LG, et al. 1,500 IU human chorionic gonadotropin administered at oocyte retrieval rescues the luteal phase when gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used for ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 2010;93(3):847–854.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P, Polyzos, NP, Alsbjerg, B, et al. GnRHa trigger and individualized luteal phase hCG support according to ovarian response to stimulation: two prospective randomized controlled multi-centre studies in IVF patients. Hum Reprod 2013;28(9):2511–2521.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, et al. Comparison of “triggers” using leuprolide acetate alone or in combination with low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin. Fertil Steril 2011;95(8):2715–2717.Google Scholar
Christopoulos, G, Vlismas, A, Carby, A, et al. GnRH agonist trigger with intensive luteal phase support vs. human chorionic gonadotropin trigger in high responders: an observational study reporting pregnancy outcomes and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Fertil 2016;19(3):199–206.Google Scholar
Radesic, B, Tremellen, K. Oocyte maturation employing a GnRH agonist in combination with low-dose hCG luteal rescue minimizes the severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome while maintaining excellent pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod 2011;26(12):3437–3442.Google Scholar
Seyhan, A, Ata, B, Polat, M, et al. Severe early ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following GnRH agonist trigger with the addition of 1500 IU hCG. Hum Reprod 2013;28(9):2522–2528.Google Scholar
Youssef, MA, Van der Veen, F, Al‐Inany, HG, et al. Gonadotropin‐releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database of Syst. Rev 2011;1:CD008046.Google Scholar
Youssef, MA, Van der Veen, F, Al-Inany, HG, et al. The updated Cochrane review 2014 on GnRH agonist trigger: an indispensable piece of information for the clinician. Reprod Biomed Online 2016;32(2):259–260.Google Scholar
Lin, MH, Wu, FS, Lee, RK, et al. Dual trigger with combination of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and human chorionic gonadotropin significantly improves the live-birth rate for normal responders in GnRH-antagonist cycles. Fertil Steril 2013;100(5):1296–1302Google Scholar
O’Neill, KE, Senapati, S, Maina, I, et al. GnRH agonist with low-dose hCG (dual trigger) is associated with higher risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome compared to GnRH agonist alone. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33(9):1175–1184.Google Scholar
Pirard, C, Loumaye, E, Laurent, P, et al. Contribution to more patient-friendly ART treatment: efficacy of continuous low-dose GnRH agonist as the only luteal support – results of a prospective, randomized, comparative study. Int J Endocrinol 2015;2015:727569.Google Scholar
Bar-Hava, I, Mizrachi, Y, Karfunkel-Doron, D, et al. Intranasal gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for luteal-phase support following GnRHa triggering, a novel approach to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in high responders. Fertil Steril 2016;106(2):330–333.Google Scholar
Kol, S, Breyzman, T, Segal, L, Humaidan, P. ‘Luteal coasting’ after GnRH agonist trigger–individualized, HCG-based, progesterone-free luteal support in ‘high responders’: a case series. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;31(6):747–751.Google Scholar
Vanetik, S, Segal, L, Breizman, T, et al. Day two post retrieval 1500 IUI hCG bolus, progesterone-free luteal support post GnRH agonist trigger–a proof of concept study. Gynecol Endocrinol 2018;34(2):132–135.Google Scholar
Fatemi, HM, Popovic-Todorovic, B. Implantation in assisted reproduction: a look at endometrial receptivity. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27(5):530–538.Google Scholar
Devroey, P, Polyzos, NP, Blockeel, C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2011;26(10):2593–2597.Google Scholar
Garcia-Velasco, JA. Agonist trigger: what is the best approach? Agonist trigger with vitrification of oocytes or embryos. Fertil Steril 2012;97(3):527–528.Google Scholar

References

Fatemi, HM, Popovic-Todorovic, B, Papanikolaou, E, Donoso, P, Devroey, P. An update of luteal phase support in stimulated IVF cycles Hum Reprod Update 2007;13(6):581–590.Google Scholar
Penzias, AS. Luteal phase support. Fertil Steril 2002;77:318–323.Google Scholar
Scott, R, Navot, D, Liu, HC, et al. A human in vivo model for the luteoplacental shift. Fertil Steril 1991;56:481–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ubaldi, F, Bourgain, C, Tournaye, H, et al. Endometrial evaluation by aspiration biopsy on the day of oocyte retrieval in the embryo transfer cycles in patients with serum progesterone rise during the follicular phase. Fertil Steril 1997;67:521–526.Google Scholar
Macklon, NS, Fauser, BC. Impact of ovarian hyperstimulation on the luteal phase. J Reprod Fertil 2000;55(Suppl):101–108.Google Scholar
Kolibianakis, EM, Devroey, P. The luteal phase after ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2002;5(Suppl 1):26–35.Google Scholar
van der Linden, M, Buckingham, K, Farquhar, C, Kremer, JA, Metwally, M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;7:CD009154.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, SM, Luciano, AA, Riddick, DH. The luteal phase defect: the relative frequency of, and encouraging response to, treatment with vaginal progesterone. Fertil Steril 1980;34:17–20.Google Scholar
Edwards, RG, Steptoe, PC, Purdy, JM. Establishing full-term human pregnancies using cleaving embryos grown in vitro. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1980;87:737–756.Google Scholar
Smitz, J, Devroey, P, Faguer, B, et al. A randomized prospective study comparing supplementation of the luteal phase and early pregnancy by natural progesterone administered by intramuscular or vaginal route. Rev Fr Gynecol Obstet 1992;87:507–516.Google Scholar
Smitz, J, Erard, P, Camus, M, et al. Pituitary gonadotrophin secretory capacity during the luteal phase in superovulation using GnRH-agonists and HMG in a desensitization or flare-up protocol. Hum Reprod 1992;7: 1225–1229.Google Scholar
Kerin, JF, Broom, TJ, Ralph, MM, et al. Human luteal phase function following oocyte aspiration from the immediately preovular graafian follicle of spontaneous ovular cycles. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1981;88:1021–1028.Google Scholar
Miyake, A, Aono, T, Kinugasa, T, Tanizawa, O, Kurachi, K. Suppression of serum levels of luteinizing hormone by short- and long-loop negative feedback in ovariectomized women. J Endocrinol 1979;80:353–356.Google Scholar
Tavaniotou, A, Devroey, P. Effect of human chorionic gonadotropin on luteal luteinizing hormone concentrations in natural cycles. Fertil Steril 2003; 80:654–655.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Albano, C, Smitz, J, Camus, M, et al. Hormonal profile during the follicular phase in cycles stimulated with a combination of human menopausal gonadotrophin and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (cetrorelix). Hum Reprod 1996;11:2114–2118.Google Scholar
Albano, C, Grimbizis, G, Smitz, J, et al. The luteal phase of nonsupplemented cycles after ovarian superovulation with human menopausal gonadotropin and the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cetrorelix. Fertil Steril 1998;70:357–359.Google Scholar
Beckers, NG, Macklon, NS, Eijkemans, MJ, et al. Nonsupplemented luteal phase characteristics after the administration of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin, recombinant luteinizing hormone, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce final oocyte maturation in in vitro fertilization patients after ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and GnRH antagonist cotreatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:4186–4192.Google Scholar
Tarlatzis, BC, Fauser, BC, Kolibianakis, EM, et al. GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:333–340.Google Scholar
Fauser, BC, Devroey, P. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and luteal phase consequences. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2003;14(5):236–242.Google Scholar
Jones, GS. Luteal phase defect: a review of pathophysiology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1991;3:641–648.Google Scholar
Casper, RF, Yen, SS. Induction of luteolysis in the human with a long-acting analog of luteinizing hormone-releasing factor. Science 1979;205:408–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffy, DM, Stewart, DR, Stouffer, RL. Titrating luteinizing hormone replacement to sustain the structure and function of the corpus luteum after gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist treatment in rhesus monkeys. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999;84:342–349.Google Scholar
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an educational bulletin. Fertil Steril 2008;89:789–792.Google Scholar
Csapo, AI, Pulkkinen, MO, Ruttner, B, Sauvage, JP, Wiest, WG. The significance of the human corpus luteum in pregnancy maintenance. I. Preliminary studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1972;112:1061–1067.Google Scholar
Csapo, AI, Pulkkinen, MO, Wiest, WG. Effects of lutectomy and progesterone replacement therapy in early pregnant patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1973;115:759–765.Google Scholar
Bourgain, C, Devroey, P, Van Waesberghe, L, Smitz, J, Van Steirteghem, AC. Effects of natural progesterone on the morphology of the endometrium in patients with primary ovarian failure. Hum Reprod 1990;5:537–543.Google Scholar
Martin, J, Dominguez, F, Avila, S, et al. Human endometrial receptivity: gene regulation. J Reprod Immunol 2002;55:131–139.Google Scholar
Paulson, RJ, Sauer, MV, Lobo, RA. Embryo implantation after human in vitro fertilization: importance of endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril 1990;53:870–874.Google Scholar
Bulletti, C, de Ziegler, D. Uterine contractility and embryo implantation. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2005;17:265–276.Google Scholar
Fanchin, R, Righini, C, Olivennes, F, et al. Uterine contractions at the time of embryo transfer alter pregnancy rates after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998;13:1968–1974.Google Scholar
Simon, JA, Robinson, DE, Andrews, MC, et al. The absorption of oral micronized progesterone: the effect of food, dose proportionality, and comparison with intramuscular progesterone. Fertil Steril 1993;60:26–33.Google Scholar
Tavaniotou, A, Smitz, J, Bourgain, C, Devroey, P. Comparison between different routes of progesterone administration as luteal phase support in infertility treatments. Hum Reprod Update 2000;6:139–148.Google Scholar
Sator, M, Radicioni, M, Cometti, B, et al. Pharmacokinetics and safety profile of a novel progesterone aqueous formulation administered by the s.c. route. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013;29:205–208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubayter, Z, Muasher, S. Luteal supplementation in in vitro fertilization: more questions than answers. Fertil Steril 2008;89(4):749–758.Google Scholar
de Ziegler, D, Seidler, L, Scharer, E, Bouchard, P. Non-oral administration of progesterone: experiences and possibilities of the transvaginal route. Schweiz Rundsch Med Prax 1995;84:127–133.Google Scholar
Whitehead, MI, Townsend, PT, Gill, DK, Collins, WP, Campbell, S. Absorption and metabolism of oral progesterone. Br Med J 1980;280:825–827.Google Scholar
Chakravarty, BN, Shirazee, HH, Dam, P, et al. Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal micronised progesterone as luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: results of a randomised study. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2005;97:416–420.Google Scholar
Tournaye, H, Sukhikh, G, Kuhler, E, Griesinger, G. A phase III randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for luteal support in in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2017;32(5):1019–1027.Google Scholar
Levine, H. Luteal support in IVF using the novel vaginal progesterone gel Crinone 8%: results of an open-label trial in 1184 women from 16 US centers. Fertil Steril 2000;74:836–837.Google Scholar
Cicinelli, E, Schonauer, LM, Galantino, P, et al. Mechanisms of uterine specificity of vaginal progesterone. Hum Reprod 2000;15(Suppl 1):159–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vaisbuch, E, Leong, M, Shoham, Z. Progesterone support in IVF: is evidence-based medicine translated to clinical practice? A worldwide web-based survey. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;25:139–145.Google Scholar
Simunic, V, Tomic, V, Tomic, J, Nizic, D. Comparative study of the efficacy and tolerability of two vaginal progesterone formulations, Crinone 8% gel and Utrogestan capsules, used for luteal phase support. Fertil Steril 2007;87:83–87.Google Scholar
Costabile, L, Gerli, S, Manna, C, et al. A prospective randomized study comparing intramuscular progesterone and 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2001;76:394–396.Google Scholar
Pritts, EA, Atwood, AK. Luteal phase support in infertility treatment: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials. Hum Reprod 2002;17:2287–2299.Google Scholar
Lightman, A, Kol, S, Itskovitz-Eldor, J. A prospective randomized study comparing intramuscular with intravaginal natural progesterone in programmed thaw cycles. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2596–2599.Google Scholar
Propst, AM, Hill, JA, Ginsburg, ES, et al. A randomized study comparing Crinone 8% and intramuscular progesterone supplementation in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2001;76:1144–1149.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, Y, Robert, F, Englert, Y, et al. Acute eosinophilic pneumonia associated with intramuscular administration of progesterone as luteal phase support after IVF: case report. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1806–1810.Google Scholar
Veysman, B, Vlahos, I, Oshva, L. Pneumonitis and eosinophilia after in vitro fertilization treatment. Ann Emerg Med 2006;47:472–475.Google Scholar
Baker, V, Jones, C, Doody, K, et al. A randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of aqueous subcutaneous progesterone with vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support of in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2014;29(10):2210–2220.Google Scholar
Doblinger, J, Cometti, B, Trevisan, S, Griesinger, G. Subcutaneous progesterone is effective and safe for luteal phase support in IVF: an individual patient data meta-analysis of the phase III trials. PLoS One 2016;11(3):e0151388.Google Scholar
Johnson, MR, Abbas, AA, Irvine, R, et al. Regulation of corpus luteum function. Hum Reprod 1994;9:41–48.Google Scholar
Maslar, IA, Ansbacher, R. Effect of short-duration progesterone treatment on decidual prolactin production by cultures of proliferative human endometrium. Fertil Steril 1988;50:250–254.Google Scholar
Sharara, FI, McClamrock, HD. Ratio of oestradiol concentration on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin administration to mid-luteal oestradiol concentration is predictive of in-vitro fertilization outcome. Hum Reprod 1999;14(11):2777–2782.Google Scholar
Ludwig, M, Diedrich, K. Evaluation of an optimal luteal phase support protocol in IVF. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2001;80:452–466.Google Scholar
Fatemi, HM, Camus, M, Kolibianakis, EM, et al. The luteal phase of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone/gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in vitro fertilization cycles during supplementation with progesterone or progesterone and estradiol. Fertil Steril 2006;87:504–508.Google Scholar
Fatemi, HM, Kolibianakis, EM, Camus, M, et al. Addition of estradiol to progesterone for luteal supplementation in patients stimulated with GnRH antagonist/rFSH for IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2006;21:2628–2632.Google Scholar
Kolibianakis, EM, Venetis, CA, Papanikolaou, EG, et al. Estrogen addition to progesterone for luteal phase support in cycles stimulated with GnRH analogues and gonadotrophins for IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2008;23(6):1346–1354.Google Scholar
Lawrenz, B, Samir, S, Garrido, N, et al. Luteal coasting and individualization of human chorionic gonadotropin dose after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering for final oocyte maturation: a retrospective proof-of-concept study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2018;9:33.Google Scholar
Itskovitz, J, Boldes, R, Levron, J, et al. Induction of preovulatory luteinizing hormone surge and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Fertil Steril 1991;56(2):213–220.Google Scholar
Zelinski-Wooten, MB, Lanzendorf, SE, Wolf, DP, Chandrasekher, YA, Stouffer, RL. Titrating luteinizing hormone surge requirements for ovulatory changes in primate follicles. I. Oocyte maturation and corpus luteum function. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1991;73(3):577–583.Google Scholar
Engmann, L, Benadiva, C, Humaidan, P. GnRH agonist trigger for the induction of oocyte maturation in GnRH antagonist IVF cycles: a SWOT analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2016;32(3):274–285.Google Scholar
Lawrenz, B, Humaidan, P, Kol, S, Fatemi, HM. GnRHa trigger and luteal coasting: a new approach for the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome high-risk patient? Reprod Biomed Online 2018;36(1):75–77.Google Scholar
Fatemi, HM, Popovic-Todorovic, B, Humaidan, P, et al. Severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome after gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger and ‘freeze-all’ approach in GnRH antagonist protocol. Fertil Steril 2014;101:1008–1011.Google Scholar
Lawrenz, B, Garrido, N, Samir, S, et al. Individual luteolysis pattern after GnRH-agonist trigger for final oocyte maturation. PLoS One 2017;12:e0176600.Google Scholar
Hutchison, JS, Zeleznik, AJ. The corpus luteum of the primate menstrual cycle is capable of recovering from a transient withdrawal of pituitary gonadotrophin support. Endocrinology 1985;117:1043–1049.Google Scholar
Dubourdieu, S, Charbonnel, B, Massai, MR, et al. Suppression of corpus luteum function by the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist Nal-Glu: effect of the dose and timing of human chorionic gonadotrophin administration. Fertil Steril 1991;56:440–512.Google Scholar
Kol, S, Breyzman, T, Segal, L, Humaidan, P. ‘Luteal coasting’ after GnRH agonist trigger–individualized, HCG-based, progesterone-free luteal support in ‘high responders’: a case series. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;31:747–751.Google Scholar
Pirard, C, Donnez, J, Loumaye, E. GnRH agonist as novel luteal support: results of a randomized, parallel group, feasibility study using intranasal administration of buserelin. Hum Reprod 2005;20:1798–1804.Google Scholar
Bar-Hava, I, Mizrachi, Y, Karfunkel-Doron, D, et al. Intranasal gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for luteal-phase support following GnRHa triggering, a novel approach to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in high responders. Fertil Steril 2016;106:330–333.Google Scholar
Buettner, GR. The pecking order of free radicals and antioxidants: lipid peroxidation, alpha-tocopherol, and ascorbate. Arch Biochem Biophys 1993;300:535–543.Google Scholar
Millar, J. Vitamin C–the primate fertility factor? Med Hypotheses 1992;38:292–295.Google Scholar
Margolin, Y, Aten, RF, Behrman, HR. Antigonadotropic and antisteroidogenic actions of peroxide in rat granulosa cells. Endocrinology 1990;127:245–250.Google Scholar
Polak, G, Koziol-Montewka, M, Gogacz, M, Kotarski, J. Total antioxidant status of peritoneal fluid in infertile women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2001;94:261–263.Google Scholar
Griesinger, G, Franke, K, Kinast, C, et al. Ascorbic acid supplement during luteal phase in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet 2002;19:164–168.Google Scholar
Lee, KA, Koo, JJ, Yoon, TK, et al. Immunosuppression by corticosteroid has no effect on the pregnancy rate in routine in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer patients. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1832–1835.Google Scholar
Ubaldi, F, Rienzi, L, Ferrero, S, et al. Low dose prednisolone administration in routine ICSI patients does not improve pregnancy and implantation rates. Hum Reprod 2002;17:1544–1547.Google Scholar
Moffitt, D, Queenan, JT Jr., Veeck, LL, et al. Low-dose glucocorticoids after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer have no significant effect on pregnancy rate. Fertil Steril 1995;63:571–577.Google Scholar
Dan, S, Wei, W, Yichao, S, et al. Effect of prednisolone administration on patients with unexplained recurrent miscarriage and in routine intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a meta-analysis. Am J Reprod Immunol 2015;74(1):89–97.Google Scholar
Vane, JR, Flower, RJ, Botting, RM. History of aspirin and its mechanism of action. Stroke 1990;21:IV12–IV23.Google Scholar
Okuda, K, Miyamoto, Y, Skarzynski, DJ. Regulation of endometrial prostaglandin F(2alpha) synthesis during luteolysis and early pregnancy in cattle. Domest Anim Endocrinol 2002;23:255–264.Google Scholar
Wada, I, Hsu, CC, Williams, G, Macnamee, MC, Brinsden, PR. The benefits of low-dose aspirin therapy in women with impaired uterine perfusion during assisted conception. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1954–1957.Google Scholar
Weckstein, LN, Jacobson, A, Galen, D, Hampton, K, Hammel, J. Low-dose aspirin for oocyte donation recipients with a thin endometrium: prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril 1997;68:927–930.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, M, Marazzi, A, Polak, DF. Low-dose aspirin treatment improves ovarian responsiveness, uterine and ovarian blood flow velocity, implantation, and pregnancy rates in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: a prospective, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled assay. Fertil Steril 1999;71:825–829.Google Scholar
Urman, B, Mercan, R, Alatas, C, et al. Low-dose aspirin does not increase implantation rates in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective randomized study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2000;17:586–590.Google Scholar
Hurst, BS, Bhojwani, JT, Marshburn, PB, et al. Low-dose aspirin does not improve ovarian stimulation, endometrial response, or pregnancy rates for in vitro fertilization. J Exp Clin Assist Reprod 2005;2:8.Google Scholar
Geva, E, Amit, A, Lerner-Geva, L, et al. Prednisone and aspirin improve pregnancy rate in patients with reproductive failure and autoimmune antibodies: a prospective study. Am J Reprod Immunol 2000;43:36–40.Google Scholar
Whelan, JG III, Vlahos, NF. The ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril 2000;73:883–896.Google Scholar
Hutchinson-Williams, KA, DeCherney, AH, Lavy, G, et al. Luteal rescue in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 1990;53:495–501.Google Scholar
Anthony, FW, Smith, EM, Gadd, SC, et al. Placental protein 14 secretion during in vitro fertilization cycles with and without human chorionic gonadotropin for luteal support. Fertil Steril 1993;59:187–191.Google Scholar
Honda, T, Fujiwara, H, Yamada, S, et al. Integrin alpha5 is expressed on human luteinizing granulosa cells during corpus luteum formation, and its expression is enhanced by human chorionic gonadotrophin in vitro. Mol Hum Reprod 1997;3:979–984.Google Scholar
Ghosh, D, Stewart, DR, Nayak, NR, et al. Serum concentrations of oestradiol-17beta, progesterone, relaxin and chorionic gonadotrophin during blastocyst implantation in natural pregnancy cycle and in embryo transfer cycle in the rhesus monkey. Hum Reprod 1997;12:914–920.Google Scholar
Herman, A, Ron-El, R, Golan, A, et al. Pregnancy rate and ovarian hyperstimulation after luteal human chorionic gonadotropin in in vitro fertilization stimulated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog and menotropins. Fertil Steril 1990;53:92–96.Google Scholar
Mochtar, MH, Hogerzeil, HV, Mol, BW. Progesterone alone versus progesterone combined with HCG as luteal support in GnRHa/HMG induced IVF cycles: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1602–1605.Google Scholar
Pirard, C, Donnez, J, Loumaye, E. GnRH agonist as novel luteal support: results of a randomized, parallel group, feasibility study using intranasal administration of buserelin. Hum Reprod (2005) 20:1798–1804Google Scholar
Tesarik, J, Hazout, A, Mendoza-Tesarik, R, Mendoza, N, Mendoza, C. Beneficial effect of luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration on embryo implantation after ICSI in both GnRH agonist- and antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles. Hum Reprod 2006;21:2572–2579.Google Scholar
Pirard, C, Donnez, J, Loumaye, E. GnRH agonist as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction technique cycles: results of a pilot study. Hum Reprod 2006;21(7):1894–1900.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J, Hazout, A, Mendoza, C. Enhancement of embryo developmental potential by a single administration of GnRH agonist at the time of implantation. Hum Reprod 2004;19:1176–1180.Google Scholar
Kyrou, D, Kolibianakis, EM, Fatemi, HM, et al. Increased live birth rates with GnRH agonist addition for luteal support in ICSI/IVF cycles: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:734–740.Google Scholar
Martins, WP, Ferriani, RA, Navarro, PA, Nastri, CO. GnRH agonist during luteal phase in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47(2):144–151.Google Scholar
Connell, MT, Szatkowski, JM, Terry, N, et al. Timing luteal support in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2015;103:939–946.Google Scholar
Proctor, A, Hurst, BS, Marshburn, PB, Matthews, ML. Effect of progesterone supplementation in early pregnancy on the pregnancy outcome after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2006;85:1550–1552.Google Scholar
Liu, XR, Mu, HQ, Shi, Q, Xiao, XQ, Qi, HB. The optimal duration of progesterone supplementation in pregnant women after IVF/ICSI: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012;10:107.Google Scholar
Pan, SP, Chao, KH, Huang, CC, et al. Early stop of progesterone supplementation after confirmation of pregnancy in IVF/ICSI fresh embryo transfer cycles of poor responders does not affect pregnancy outcome. PLoS One 2018;13(8):e0201824.Google Scholar

References

Edwards, RG, Steptoe, PC, Purdy, JM. Establishing full‐term human pregnancies using cleaving embryos grown in vitro. BJOG 1980;87(9):737–756.Google Scholar
Gardner, DK, Weissman, A, Howles, CM, Shoham, Z (eds.). Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques: Laboratory and Clinical Perspectives. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2016.Google Scholar
Messinis, IE, Messini, CI, Dafopoulos, K. Luteal-phase endocrinology. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:15–29.Google Scholar
Pabuccu, R, Akar, ME. Luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2005;17(3):277–281.Google Scholar
De Ziegler, D, Cedars, MI, Randle, D, et al. Suppression of the ovary using a gonadotropin releasing-hormone agonist prior to stimulation for oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril 1987;48(5):807–810.Google Scholar
Neveu, S, Hedon, B, Bringer, J, et al. Ovarian stimulation by a combination of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and gonadotropins for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1987;47(4):639–643.Google Scholar
Fraser, HM. Effect of oestrogen on gonadotrophin release in stumptailed monkeys (Macaca arctoides) treated chronically with an agonist analogue of luteinizing hormone releasing hormone. J Endocrinol 1981;91(3):525–530.Google Scholar
Fauser, BC, Devroey, P. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and luteal phase consequences. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2003;14(5):236–242.Google Scholar
Miyake, A, Aono, T, Kinugasa, T, Tanizawa, O, Kurachi, K. Suppression of serum levels of luteinizing hormone by short- and long-loop negative feedback in ovariectomized women. J Endocrinol 1979;80(3):353–356.Google Scholar
Smitz, J, Devroey, P, Van Steirteghem, AC. Endocrinology in luteal phase and implantation. Br Med Bull 1990;46(3):709–719.Google Scholar
Messinis, IE, Bergh, T, Wide, L. The importance of human chorionic gonadotropin support of the corpus luteum during human gonadotropin therapy in women with anovulatory infertility. Fertil Steril 1988;50(1):31–35.Google Scholar
Belaisch-Allart, J, De Mouzon, J, Lapousterle, C, Mayer, M. The effect of HCG supplementation after combined GnRH agonist/HMG treatment in an IVF programme. Hum Reprod 1990;5(2):163–166.Google Scholar
Kupferminc, MJ, Lessing, JB, Amit, A, et al. A prospective randomized trial of human chorionic gonadotrophin or dydrogesterone support following in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 1990;5(3):271–273.Google Scholar
Beckers, NG, Laven, JS, Eijkemans, MJ, Fauser, BC. Follicular and luteal phase characteristics following early cessation of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist during ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000;15(1):43–49.Google Scholar
van der Linden, M, Buckingham, K, Farquhar, C, Kremer, JA, Metwally, M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;7:CD009154.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P, Ejdrup Bredkjaer, H, Bungum, L, et al. GnRH agonist (buserelin) or hCG for ovulation induction in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005;20(5):1213–1220.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Hudson, C. Comparison of “triggers” using leuprolide acetate alone or in combination with low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin. Fertil Steril 2011;95(8):2715–2717.Google Scholar
Engmann, L, Romak, J, Nulsen, J, Benadiva, C, Peluso, J. In vitro viability and secretory capacity of human luteinized granulosa cells after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger of oocyte maturation. Fertil Steril 2011;96(1):198–202.Google Scholar
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, Aguirre, M, Thomas, S. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist combined with a reduced dose of human chorionic gonadotropin for final oocyte maturation in fresh autologous cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2008;90(1):231–233.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P, Bredkjær, HE, Westergaard, LG, Andersen, CY. 1,500 IU human chorionic gonadotropin administered at oocyte retrieval rescues the luteal phase when gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used for ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 2010;93(3):847–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humaidan, P. Luteal phase rescue in high-risk OHSS patients by GnRHa triggering in combination with low-dose HCG: a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18(5):630–634.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P, Bungum, L, Bungum, M, Andersen, CY. Rescue of corpus luteum function with peri-ovulatory HCG supplementation in IVF/ICSI GnRH antagonist cycles in which ovulation was triggered with a GnRH agonist: a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13(2):173–178.Google Scholar
Seyhan, A, Ata, B, Polat, M, et al. Severe early ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following GnRH agonist trigger with the addition of 1500 IU hCG. Hum Reprod 2013;28(9):2522–2528.Google Scholar
Andersen, CY, Fischer, R, Giorgione, V, Kelsey, TW. Micro-dose hCG as luteal phase support without exogenous progesterone administration: mathematical modelling of the hCG concentration in circulation and initial clinical experience. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016;33(10):1311–1318.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P, Polyzos, NP, Alsbjerg, B, et al. GnRHa trigger and individualized luteal phase hCG support according to ovarian response to stimulation: two prospective randomized controlled multi-centre studies in IVF patients. Hum Reprod 2013;28(9):2511–2521.Google Scholar
Andersen, CY, Andersen, KV. Improving the luteal phase after ovarian stimulation: reviewing new options. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;28(5):552–559.Google Scholar
Thuesen, LL, Loft, A, Egeberg, AN, et al. A randomized controlled dose–response pilot study of addition of hCG to recombinant FSH during controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2012;27(10):3074–3084.Google Scholar
De Ziegler, D, Pirtea, P, Andersen, CY, Ayoubi, JM. Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), progesterone, and estrogen in luteal phase support after hCG triggering, and when in pregnancy hormonal support can be stopped. Fertil Steril 2018;109(5):749–755.Google Scholar
Papanikolaou, EG, Verpoest, W, Fatemi, H, et al. A novel method of luteal supplementation with recombinant luteinizing hormone when a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used instead of human chorionic gonadotropin for ovulation triggering: a randomized prospective proof of concept study. Fertil Steril 2011;95(3):1174–1177.Google Scholar
Kang, IS, Kuehl, TJ, Siler-Khodr, TM. Effect of treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues on pregnancy outcome in the baboon. Fertil Steril 1989;52(5):846–853.Google Scholar
Skarin, G, Nillius, SJ, Wide, L. Failure to induce early abortion by huge doses of a superactive LRH agonist in women. Contraception 1982;26(5):457–463.Google Scholar
Bar Hava, I, Blueshtein, M, Herman, HG, Omer, Y, David, GB. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue as sole luteal support in antagonist-based assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril 2017;107(1):130–135.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J, Hazout, A, Mendoza, C. Enhancement of embryo developmental potential by a single administration of GnRH agonist at the time of implantation. Hum Reprod 2004;19(5):1176–1180.Google Scholar
Pirard, C, Loumaye, E, Laurent, P, Wyns, C. Contribution to more patient-friendly ART treatment: efficacy of continuous low-dose GnRH agonist as the only luteal support – results of a prospective, randomized, comparative study. Int J Endocrinol 2015;2015:727569.Google Scholar
Pirard, C, Donnez, J, Loumaye, E. GnRH agonist as novel luteal support: results of a randomized, parallel group, feasibility study using intranasal administration of buserelin. Hum Reprod 2005;20(7):1798–1804.Google Scholar
Tesarik, J, Hazout, A, Mendoza-Tesarik, R, Mendoza, N, Mendoza, C. Beneficial effect of luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration on embryo implantation after ICSI in both GnRH agonist- and antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles. Hum Reprod 2006;21(10):2572–2579.Google Scholar
Yıldız, GA, Şükür, YE, Ateş, C, Aytaç, R. The addition of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist to routine luteal phase support in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer cycles: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014;182:66–70.Google Scholar
Aboulghar, MA, Marie, H, Amin, YM, et al. GnRH agonist plus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in ICSI cycles: a randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30(1):52–56.Google Scholar
Pirard, C, Donnez, J, Loumaye, E. GnRH agonist as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction technique cycles: results of a pilot study. Hum Reprod 2006;21(7):1894–1900.Google Scholar
Kawamura, K, Fukuda, J, Kumagai, J, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone I analog acts as an antiapoptotic factor in mouse blastocysts. Endocrinology 2005;146(9):4105–4116.Google Scholar
Wong, KH, Simon, JA. In vitro effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist on natural killer cell cytolysis in women with and without endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190(1):44–49.Google Scholar
Kyrou, D, Kolibianakis, EM, Fatemi, HM, et al. Increased live birth rates with GnRH agonist addition for luteal support in ICSI/IVF cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17(6):734–740.Google Scholar
Martins, WP, Ferriani, RA, Navarro, PA, Nastri, CO. GnRH agonist during luteal phase in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47(2):144–151.Google Scholar
Bhurke, AS, Bagchi, IC, Bagchi, MK. Progesterone‐regulated endometrial factors controlling implantation. Am J Reprod Immunol 2016;75(3):237–245.Google Scholar
Li, S, Li, Y. Administration of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase frozen–thawed embryo transfer cycles: a meta-analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol 2018 ;34(11):920–924.Google Scholar
Janssens, RMJ, Brus, L, Cahill, DJ, et al. Direct ovarian effects and safety of GnRH agonists and antagonists. Hum Reprod Update 2000;6(5):505–518.Google Scholar
Cahill, DJ. The risks of GnRH agonist administration in early pregnancy. In: Filicori, M, Flamigni, C, eds. Ovulation Induction Update’98. London: Parthenon; 1998:97–106.Google Scholar
Marcus, SF, Ledger, WL. Efficacy and safety of long-acting GnRH agonists in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Fertil 2001;4(2):85–93.Google Scholar
Oliveira, JB, Baruffi, R, Petersen, CG, et al. Administration of single-dose GnRH agonist in the luteal phase in ICSI cycles: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010;8(1):107.Google Scholar
Zhou, W, Zhuang, Y, Pan, Y, Xia, F. Effects and safety of GnRH-a as a luteal support in women undertaking assisted reproductive technology procedures: follow-up results for pregnancy, delivery, and neonates. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017;295(5):1269–1275.Google Scholar
Orvieto, R, Kerner, R, Krissi, H, et al. Comparison of leuprolide acetate and triptorelin in assisted reproductive technology cycles: a prospective, randomized study. Fertil Steril 2002;78(6):1268–1271.Google Scholar
Bar-Hava, I, Mizrachi, Y, Karfunkel-Doron, D, et al. Intranasal gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for luteal-phase support following GnRHa triggering, a novel approach to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in high responders. Fertil Steril 2016;106(2):330–333.Google Scholar
Laufer, N, Navot, D, Schenker, JG. The pattern of luteal phase plasma progesterone and estradiol in fertile cycles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1982;143(7):808–813.Google Scholar
Lipson, SF, Ellison, PT. Comparison of salivary steroid profiles in naturally occurring conception and non-conception cycles. Hum Reprod 1996;11(10):2090–2096.Google Scholar
Bouchard, P. Understanding endometrial physiology and menstrual disorders in the 1990s. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 1993;5(3):378–388.Google Scholar
Smitz, J, Devroey, P, Braeckmans, P, et al. Management of failed cycles in an IVF/GIFT programme with the combination of GnRH analogue and HMG. Hum Reprod 1987;2(4):309–314.Google Scholar
Hancke, K, More, S, Kreienberg, R, Weiss, JM. Patients undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer have similar live birth rates in spontaneous and artificial cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012;29(5):403–407.Google Scholar
Fritz, MA, Westfahl, PK, Graham, RL. The effect of luteal phase estrogen antagonism on endometrial development and luteal function in women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1987;65(5):1006–1013.Google Scholar
Vlahos, NF, Lipari, CW, Bankowski, B, et al. Effect of luteal-phase support on endometrial L-selectin ligand expression after recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and ganirelix acetate for in vitro fertilization. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2006;91(10):4043–4049.Google Scholar
Ghosh, D, De, P, Sengupta, J. Luteal phase ovarian oestrogen is not essential for implantation and maintenance of pregnancy from surrogate embryo transfer in the rhesus monkey. Hum Reprod 1994;9(4):629–637.Google Scholar
Farhi, J, Weissman, A, Steinfeld, Z, et al. Estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase may improve the pregnancy rate in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2000;73(4):761–766.Google Scholar
Lukaszuk, K, Liss, J, Lukaszuk, M, Maj, B. Optimization of estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase improves the pregnancy rate in women undergoing in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2005;83(5):1372–1376.Google Scholar
Ghanem, ME, Sadek, EE, Elboghdady, LA, et al. The effect of luteal phase support protocol on cycle outcome and luteal phase hormone profile in long agonist protocol intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2009;92(2):486–493.Google Scholar
Elgindy, EA, El-Haieg, DO, Mostafa, MI, Shafiek, M. Does luteal estradiol supplementation have a role in long agonist cycles? Fertil Steril 2010;93(7):2182–2188.Google Scholar
Var, T, Tonguc, EA, Doğanay, M, et al. A comparison of the effects of three different luteal phase support protocols on in vitro fertilization outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. Fertil Steril 2011;95(3):985–989.Google Scholar
Fatemi, HM, Kolibianakis, EM, Camus, M, et al. Addition of estradiol to progesterone for luteal supplementation in patients stimulated with GnRH antagonist/rFSH for IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2006;21(10):2628–2632.Google Scholar
Ceyhan, ST, Basaran, M, Duru, NK, et al. Use of luteal estrogen supplementation in normal responder patients treated with fixed multidose GnRH antagonist: a prospective randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril 2008;89(6):1827–1830.Google Scholar
Kolibianakis, EM, Venetis, CA, Papanikolaou, EG, et al. Estrogen addition to progesterone for luteal phase support in cycles stimulated with GnRH analogues and gonadotrophins for IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2008;23(6):1346–1354.Google Scholar
Huang, N, Situ, B, Chen, X, et al. Meta-analysis of estradiol for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2015;103(2):367–373.Google Scholar
Pritts, EA, Atwood, AK. Luteal phase support in infertility treatment: a meta-analysis of the randomized trials. Hum Reprod 2002;17(9):2287–2299.Google Scholar
Gelbaya, TA, Kyrgiou, M, Tsoumpou, I, Nardo, LG. The use of estradiol for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2008;90(6):2116–2125.Google Scholar
Jee, BC, Suh, CS, Kim, SH, Kim, YB, Moon, SY. Effects of estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase of in vitro fertilization cycles: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2010;93(2):428–436.Google Scholar
Wright, KP, Guibert, J, Weitzen, S, et al. Artificial versus stimulated cycles for endometrial preparation prior to frozen–thawed embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13(3):321–325.Google Scholar
Smitz, J, Bourgain, C, Van Waesberghe, L, et al. A prospective randomized study on oestradiol valerate supplementation in addition to intravaginal micronized progesterone in buserelin and HMG induced superovulation. Hum Reprod 1993;8(1):40–45.Google Scholar
Fanchin, R, Righini, C, Schönauer, LM, et al. Vaginal versus oral E2 administration: effects on endometrial thickness, uterine perfusion, and contractility. Fertil Steril 2001;76(5):994–998.Google Scholar
Engmann, L, DiLuigi, A, Schmidt, D, et al. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce oocyte maturation after cotreatment with GnRH antagonist in high-risk patients undergoing in vitro fertilization prevents the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a prospective randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril 2008;89(1):84–91.Google Scholar
Imbar, T, Kol, S, Lossos, F, et al. Reproductive outcome of fresh or frozen–thawed embryo transfer is similar in high-risk patients for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome using GnRH agonist for final oocyte maturation and intensive luteal support. Hum Reprod 2012;27(3):753–759.Google Scholar

References

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015;103:e9–e17.Google Scholar
Tal, R, Seifer, DB. Ovarian reserve testing: a user’s guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217:129–140.Google Scholar
Findlay, JK, Hutt, KJ, Hickey, M, Anderson, RA. What is the “ovarian reserve”? Fertil Steril 2015;103:628–630.Google Scholar
Sallam, HN, Ezzeldin, F, Agameya, AF, et al. Defining poor responders in assisted reproduction. Int J Fertil Womens Med 2005;50:115–120.Google Scholar
van der Gaast, MH, Eijkemans, MJ, van der Net, JB, et al. Optimum number of oocytes for a successful first IVF treatment cycle. Reprod Biomed Online 2006;13:476–480.Google Scholar
Drakopoulos, P, Blockeel, C, Stoop, D, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod 2016;31:370–376.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;110:661–670.Google Scholar
Magnusson, Å, Källen, K, Thurin-Kjellberg, A, Bergh, C. The number of oocytes retrieved during IVF: a balance between efficacy and safety. Hum Reprod 2018;33:58–64.Google Scholar
Ji, J, Liu, Y, Tong, XH, et al. The optimum number of oocytes in IVF treatment: an analysis of 2455 cycles in China. Hum Reprod 2013;28:2728–2734.Google Scholar
Broekmans, FJ, Kwee, J, Hendriks, DJ, et al. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:685–718.Google Scholar
de Bruin, JP, Dorland, M, Spek, ER, et al. Age-related changes in the ultrastructure of the resting follicle pool in human ovaries. Biol Reprod 2004;70:419–424.Google Scholar
Scheffer, JAB, Scheffer, B, Scheffer, R, et al. Are age and anti-Müllerian hormone good predictors of ovarian reserve and response in women undergoing IVF? JBRA Assist Reprod 2018;22:215–220.Google Scholar
Al-Azemi, M, Killick, SR, Duffy, S, et al. Multi-marker assessment of ovarian reserve predicts oocyte yield after ovulation induction. Hum Reprod 2011;26:414–422.Google Scholar
Ashrafi, M, Madani, T, Tehranian, AS, Malekzadeh, F. Follicle stimulating hormone as a predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;91:53–57.Google Scholar
Broekmans, FJ, Kwee, J, Hendriks, DJ, et al. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:685–718.Google Scholar
Wang, S, Zhang, Y, Mensah, V, et al. Discordant anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) among women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF): which one is the better predictor for live birth? J Ovarian Res 2018;11:60.Google Scholar
Hofmann, GE, Danforth, DR, Seifer, DB. Inhibin-B: the physiologic basis of the clomiphene citrate challenge test for ovarian reserve screening. Fertil Steril 1998;69:474–477.Google Scholar
Steiner, AZ, Herring, AH, Kesner, JS, et al. Antimullerian hormone as predictor of natural fecundability in women aged 30–42 years. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:798–804.Google Scholar
Corson, SL, Gutmann, J, Batzer, FR, et al. Inhibin-B as a test of ovarian reserve for infertile women. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2818–2821.Google Scholar
Popovic-Todorovic, B, Loft, A, Lindhard, A, et al. A prospective study of predictive factors of ovarian response in ‘standard’ IVF/ICSI patients treated with recombinant FSH. A suggestion for a recombinant FSH dosage normogram. Hum Reprod 2003;18:781–787.Google Scholar
Kwee, J, Elting, ME, Schats, R, et al. Ovarian volume and antral follicle count for the prediction of low and hyper responders with in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2007;15:5–9.Google Scholar
Lee, TH, Liu, CH, Huang, CC, et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and estradiol levels as predictors of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in assisted reproduction technology cycles. Hum Reprod 2008;23:160–167.Google Scholar
Tang, H, Yan, Y, Wang, T, et al. Effect of follicle-stimulating hormone receptor Asn680Ser polymorphism on the outcomes of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: an updated meta-analysis of 16 cohort studies. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015;32:1801–1810.Google Scholar
Motawi, TMK, Rizk, SM, Maurice, NW, et al. The role of gene polymorphism and AMH level in prediction of poor ovarian response in Egyptian women undergoing IVF procedure. J Assist Reprod Genet 2017;34:1659–1666.Google Scholar
Tomás, C, Nuojua-Huttunen, S, Martikainen, H. Pretreatment transvaginal ultrasound examination predicts ovarian responsiveness to gonadotrophins in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1997;12:220–223.Google Scholar
Danninger, B, Brunner, M, Obruca, A, Feichtinger, W. Prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome by ultrasound volumetric assessment [corrected] of baseline ovarian volume prior to stimulation. Hum Reprod 1996;11:1597–1599.Google Scholar
Loumaye, E, Billion, JM, Mine, JM, et al. Prediction of individual response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation by means of a clomiphene citrate challenge test. Fertil Steril 1990;53:295–301.Google Scholar
Hendriks, DJ, Mol, BW, Bancsi, LF, et al. The clomiphene citrate challenge test for the prediction of poor ovarian response and non-pregnancy in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review. Fertil Steril 2006;86:807–818.Google Scholar
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;19:26–36.Google Scholar
Nelson, SM. Biomarkers of ovarian response: current and future applications. Fertil Steril 2013;99:963–969.Google Scholar
Popovic-Todorovic, B, Loft, A, Ejdrup Bredkjñer, H, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing an individual dose of recombinant FSH based on predictive factors versus a ‘standard’ dose of 150 IU/day in ‘standard’ patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2275–2282.Google Scholar
Olivennes, F, Howles, CM, Borini, A, et al. Individualizing FSH dose for assisted reproduction using a novel algorithm: the CONSORT study. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18:195–204.Google Scholar
La Marca, A, Sunkara, SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:124–140.Google Scholar
Haahr, T, Esteves, SC, Humaidan, P. Individualized controlled ovarian stimulation in expected poor-responders: an update. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2018;16:20.Google Scholar
Yovich, J, Stanger, J, Hinchliffe, P. Targeted gonadotrophin stimulation using the PIVET algorithm markedly reduces the risk of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;24:281–292.Google Scholar
Lan, VT, Linh, NK, Tuong, HM, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone versus antral follicle count for defining the starting dose of FSH. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27:390–399.Google Scholar
Broer, SL, Mol, BW, Hendriks, D, Broekmans, FJ. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril 2009;91:705–714.Google Scholar
Magnusson, Å, Nilsson, L, Oleröd, G, et al. The addition of anti-Müllerian hormone in an algorithm for individualized hormone dosage did not improve the prediction of ovarian response-a randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2017;32:811–819.Google Scholar
Harrison, RF, Jacob, S, Spillane, H, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial of differing starter doses of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (follitropin-beta) for first time in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment cycles. Fertil Steril 2001;75:23–31.Google Scholar
Klinkert, ER, Broekmans, FJ, Looman, CW, et al. Expected poor responders on the basis of an antral follicle count do not benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005;20:611–615.Google Scholar
Berkkanoglu, M, Ozgur, K. What is the optimum maximal gonadotropin dosage used in microdose flare-up cycles in poor responders? Fertil Steril 2010;94:662–665.Google Scholar
Jayaprakasan, K, Hopkisson, J, Campbell, B, et al. A randomised controlled trial of 300 versus 225 IU recombinant FSH for ovarian stimulation in predicted normal responders by antral follicle count. BJOG 2010;117:853–862.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, J, Antaki, R, Kadoch, IJ, et al. 450 IU versus 600 IU gonadotropin for controlled ovarian stimulation in poor responders: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2015;104:1419–1425.Google Scholar
Olivennes, F, Trew, G, Borini, A, et al. Randomized, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority study of the CONSORT algorithm for individualized dosing of follitropin alfa. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:248–257.Google Scholar
Allegra, A, Marino, A, Volpes, A, et al. A randomized controlled trial investigating the use of a predictive nomogram for the selection of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2017;34:429–438.Google Scholar
Nyboe Andersen, A, Nelson, SM, Fauser, BC, et al. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril 2017;107:387–396.Google Scholar
van Tilborg, TC, Oudshoorn, SC, Eijkemans, MJC, et al. Individualized FSH dosing based on ovarian reserve testing in women starting IVF/ICSI: a multicentre trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Hum Reprod 2017;32:2485–2495.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;32:2496–2505.Google Scholar
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;32:2506–2514.Google Scholar