Lamazou F, Fuchs F, Grynberg M, Gallot V, Herzog E, Fanchin R, Frydman N, Frydman R. [Cancellation of IVF-ET cycles: poor prognosis, poor responder, or variability of the response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation? An analysis of 142 cancellations].
ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2011;
41:41-7. [PMID:
21835556 DOI:
10.1016/j.jgyn.2011.06.001]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/21/2011] [Revised: 05/31/2011] [Accepted: 06/03/2011] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
This retrospective study aimed at analyzing IVF-ET management and outcome after cancellation of a first cycle for poor response.
PATIENTS AND METHOD
One hundred and forty-two infertile patients were included in this observational study. After an overall analysis on the outcome of the second IVF-ET attempt, a sub-analysis was performed according to the presence or the absence of poor prognostic criteria defined as mentioned: patient age superior to 38 years old, antral follicle count (3-9 mm in diameter) inferior to 10 on cycle day 3 and day 3 serum AMH and FSH levels less than 1 ng/mL and more than 10 IU/mL, respectively. Main outcome measures were the cancellation rates, pregnancy and live birth rates.
RESULTS
When a controlled ovarian stimulation was performed, patients with poor prognosis had higher cancellation rates (37.8% vs. 13.3%, P<0.004) and lower pregnancy and live birth rates (22.2% vs. 35.0%, P<0.05 and 11.1% vs. 26.1%, P<0.05, respectively) as compared to good prognosis women.
CONCLUSION
The relatively high cancellation rate in patients with poor prognosis raises the question of the use of IVF modified natural cycle in this group.
Collapse