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-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T10:12:07.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 30 - Ovarian Reserve as a Guide for Ovarian Stimulation

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2022

By
Hassan N. Sallam ,
Ahmed F. Galal  and
Nooman H. Sallam
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

Ovarian reserve refers to the number and quality of oocytes present in the ovaries of a woman at a given time and is thought to reflect her ability to respond adequately to ovarian stimulation [1;2]. The term was developed in the context of assisted reproduction to differentiate between poor, normal, and hyper-responders to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). Although the term is also applicable to anovulatory women treated for infertility with ovarian stimulation, it is mainly used to describe women receiving COS as a part of an in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) stimulation protocol.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ovarian Stimulation , pp. 311 - 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

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.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

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
×