Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2017, Vol. 44 Issue (6): 923-928    DOI: 10.12891/ceog3592.2017
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Ovarian response predictive model in different controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF/ICSI treatment
J. Micic1, 2, *(), L. Surlan1, J. Dotlic1, 2, N. Milic3, S. Vidakovic1, 2, N. Radunovic1, 2
1 Clinic for Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia
2 Medical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
3 Department for Medical Statistics and Informatics, Medical Faculty, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
Download:  PDF(347KB)  ( 69 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  
Purpose of investigation: Assesment of biomarkers of the ovarian reserve for ovarian response prediction using different controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatments. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study included 363 patients who underwent assisted reproduction at the Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Belgrade, Serbia. Antral follicle count (AFC), serum AMH, inhibin B, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), estradiol (E2), and progesterone were measured on the second cycle day prior to stimulation commencement. Three types of ovulation stimulation protocols were used. The number and quality of obtained oocytes were used for evaluation of the ovarian response. Results: Patients’ age, number of antral follicles, AMH level, and FSH/LH ratio were confirmed as predictors of the number of obtained oocytes. The AFC was the main parameter that influenced the number of obtained oocytes regardless of selected stimulation protocol. Conclusion: The individualization of stimulation protocols may be further improved by using both AFC- and AMH-tailored approach.
Key words:  Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS)      Ovarian reserve      anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH)      Antral follicle count (AFC)      Ovarian response     
Published:  10 December 2017     
*Corresponding Author(s):  J. MICIC     E-mail:  jdmicic@yahoo.com

Cite this article: 

J. Micic, L. Surlan, J. Dotlic, N. Milic, S. Vidakovic, N. Radunovic. Ovarian response predictive model in different controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF/ICSI treatment. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(6): 923-928.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog3592.2017     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2017/V44/I6/923

[1] Yu Deng, Zhan-Hui Ou, Min-Na Yin, Pei-Ling Liang, Zhi-Heng Chen, Abraham Morse, Ling Sun. Age and anti-Műllerian hormone: prediction of cumulative pregnancy outcome in in vitro fertilization with diminished ovarian reserve[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 835-841.
[2] Aybike Pekin, Ayşe Gül Kebapçılar, Ersin Çintesun, Setenay Arzu Yılmaz, Özlem Seçilmiş Kerimoğlu. Comparison of an estradiol patch and GnRH-antagonist protocol with a letrozole/antagonist protocol for patients without oocyte development, fertilization and/or embryo development in previous IVF cycles[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 924-928.
[3] H. Saleh, F. Moiety, A.F. Agameya, Y. Elkassar, R.M. El Sharakwy, D. Zeidan, H. Elmeligy. Comparison between antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormonal level in the prediction of ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients: implications in personalizing ovarian stimulation[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(2): 166-173.
[4] Hue HJ, Kim SK, Choi JY, Suh DH, Kim KD, No JH, Lee JR, Jee BC, Kim YB, Jeon HW. Previous ovarian surgery increases the risk of tubal factor infertility[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 84-88.
[5] N. Eamudomkarn, L. Salang, K. Seejorn, P. Kleebkaow. Comparison of impact on ovarian reserve between laparoscopic and laparotomy ovarian cystectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(5): 779-783.
[6] L.-S. Wang, X.-L. Zhao, X.-A. Cai, G.-F. Fu. Age specific reference intervals of serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentration of 1,253 women with healthy females in infertility center[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(4): 526-530.
[7] A.H. Kaya, E. Tekgunduz, S. Akpınar, G. Bozdağ, T.N. Yiğenoğlu, A. Merdin, S. Namdaroglu, O. Kayıkcı, F. Altuntaş. Assessment of ovarian reserve with anti-Mullerian hormone in women following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(1): 127-130.
[8] Haining Luo, Kun Yang, Ying Han, Yunshan Zhang. A case report of clinical pregnancy in which oocyte retrieval was carried out in the early follicular phase of the menstrual cycle[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2018, 45(4): 629-631.
[9] H.U. Yuvacı, S. Uysal, H. Haltaş, B. Sırav, C.I. Duvan, N. Turhan, N. Seyhan. The effect of non-ionizing radiation on the ovarian reserves of female rats[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(4): 605-610.
[10] A. Eser, D. Hizli, M. Namuslu, H. Haltas, N. Kosus, A. Kosus, H. Kafali. Protective effect of curcumin on ovarian reserve in a rat ischemia model: an experimental study[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2017, 44(3): 453-457.
[11] Wei Wang, Yan-Qing Wang, Ying-Ying Qin, Yu-Jie Dang, Ming-Di Xia, Ying Ma, Yu-Lan Mu. The feasibility of establishing classification system for ovarian function[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2016, 43(5): 631-637.
[12] B. Vural, Y. Çakıroğlu, F. Vural. The predictor markers of ovarian response in poor responders under 40 years of age[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2016, 43(5): 650-653.
[13] F. Vural, B. Vural, Y. Çakıroglu. In vitro fertilization outcomes in obese women under and above 35 years of age[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2016, 43(2): 233-237.
[14] T. Aydin, M. Kara, T. Aran, N. Turktekin, B. Ozdemir. The association between anti-Mullerian hormone and IVF-ICSI outcome in poor responder patients performing long protocol[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2015, 42(5): 663-665.
[15] N. Thomakos, S.P. Trachana, I. Koutroumpa, A. Rodolakis, N.G. Gavalas. Molecular aspects and clinical methods for preserving ovarian reserves in women receiving cancer treatment[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2015, 42(4): 416-425.
No Suggested Reading articles found!