Accumulated Vitrified Embryos Could Be a Method for Increasing Pregnancy Rates in Patients with Poor Ovarian Response

We aimed to assess the efficacy of accumulated embryo transfer (ACC-ET) through several controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COS) cycles to increase the rates of pregnancy in patients with poor ovarian response (POR). We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 588 patients with POR under 43-years old who underwent embryo transfer from January 2010 to December 2015. We compared the pregnancy rate (PR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and live birth rate (LBR) between ACC-ET (frozen-thawed: 47; fresh + frozen-thawed: 24) group (n = 71) and fresh ET groups (n = 517). Characteristics of ACC-ET patients were similar to those of fresh ET groups (Age: 38.1 ± 3.5 vs. 38.2 ± 3.7, p = 0.88; Anti Müllerian Hormone (AMH; ng/mL): 0.5 ± 0.4 vs. 0.6 ± 0.6, p = 0.38; follicle stimulating hormone (FSH: mIU/mL): 11.9 ± 8.0 vs. 10.8 ± 9.0, p = 0.35). The total number of transferred embryos (3.1 ± 0.9 vs. 1.5 ± 0.7, p = 0.00), PR (29.6% (21/71) vs. 18.8% (97/517), p = 0.040), and CPR (23.5% (16/68) vs. 14.0% (71/508) p = 0.047) were significantly higher in the ACC-ET group than in the fresh ET group. In addition, PR, CPR, and LBR increased with the number of ET in the fresh ET group. However, there were no significant differences observed in LBR between ACC-ET and fresh ET groups (14.9% (10/67) vs. 9.8% (50/508), p = 0.203). From our knowledge, there is no clinical evidence reported to prove that transfer of multiple embryos of adequate quality obtained through multiple cycles can compensate for the limited number of retrieved oocytes from POR patients. We concluded that ACC-ET from several COS cycles could be an alternative method to increase PR and CPR in <43-year-old patients with POR.

Evaluating different strategies for poor ovarian response management: a retrospective cohort study and literature review

This retrospective study compares four different strategies for managing poor ovarian response (POR), namely, conventional stimulation (300 IUs) IVF-fresh embryo transfer (CONVF), mild stimulation (150 IUs) IVF-fresh embryo transfer (MILDF), mild stimulation embryo banking (MILDB), and embryo banking in natural cycles (NATB). In total, 796 POR patients were considered eligible. Statistical analysis revealed a shorter duration of stimulation and a lower required amount of gonadotropins in MILDF compared with CONVF (9.34 ± 1.17 versus 10.37 ± 1.14; 1402 ± 176 versus 3110 ± 343, P < 0.001). Comparing MILDF and MILDB, a higher number of available oocytes and embryos was observed in MILDB (2.36 ± 1.15 versus 6.58 ± 1.11; 1.72 ± 1.02 versus 3.51 ± 0.61, P < 0.001). Moreover, the MILDB presented with a lower number of required oocyte retrievals and a higher number of oocytes per oocyte retrieval compared with NATB (3.90 ± 1.56 versus 7.15 ± 1.80; 1.95 ± 0.74 versus 0.89 ± 0.20, P < 0.001). Data indicate that MILDF is equally efficient and associated with a shorter duration of stimulation and a lower required amount of gonadotropins compared with CONVF. Embryo accumulation may be more efficient compared with a fresh embryo transfer. MILDB may be a more efficient approach compared with NATB. To conclude, embryo accumulation following mild stimulation appears to form the optimal strategy for POR management. More studies are needed to verify these conclusions.

Linking back-to-back stimulation cycles with oral contraceptives or progestins in women undergoing embryo accumulation for preimplantation genetic testing, a retrospective study

This retrospective study was carried out to determine which strategy is associated with improved outcomes in two back-to-back cycles when undergoing embryo accumulation. Eighty patients with two stimulation cycles performed with <45 days between retrievals between Jan'16-Mar'17 were included. Patients were segregated according to the strategy used to link stimulations: spontaneous menses (SM), vaginal micronized progesterone (VMP) or oral contraceptive pills (OCP). Main outcome measure was oocytes retrieved. The oocytes retrieved difference between cycles was -0.9 in SM, -1.5 in VMP and +0.4 in OCPs. Although not statistically significant, more oocytes retrieved were observed in the 2ndcycle when OCPs were used (9.0 ± 3.7 vs. 9.4 ± 4.1)? whereas fewer oocytes retrieved were observed when SM (9.4 ± 3.9 vs. 8.5 ± .0) or VMP (9.8 ± 5.7 vs. 8.2 ± 4.4) were used. After adjusting for age, gonadotropins and stimulation days (2nd cycle) and treatment group in an ANCOVA model, no treatment was associated with a higher average number of oocytes retrieved (power: 14.9%) or a higher difference of oocytes retrieved (power: 22.3%). Although no statistical significance was reached, OCPs were observed to achieve higher average and positive difference of oocytes retrieved in the 2nd cycle.