1
|
Scarafia C, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Amendola M, Colamaria S, Argento C, Giuliani M, Ferrero S, Gennarelli G, Revelli A, Benedetto C, Alviggi C, Capalbo A, Rienzi L, Ubaldi F. P-621 Different gonadotrophins adopted for controlled ovarian stimulation do not affect metaphase-II oocyte competence. A matched case-control study on 351 patients and 2258 oocytes. Hum Reprod 2022. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deac107.571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Study question
Do different gonadotrophins for controlled-ovarian-stimulation (COS) affect metaphase-II (MII) oocyte competence?
Summary answer
Euploid blastocyst rate (EBR) per cohort of MII-oocytes, live-birth-rate (LBR) per first vitrified-warmed euploid single-embryo-transfer (SET) and cumulative-LBR are independent from the gonadotrophins used.
What is known already
Controlled-ovarian-stimulation (COS) is a cornerstone of IVF. Its purpose is maximizing ovarian reserve exploitation and obtaining ≥1 euploid blastocyst to transfer. Indeed, ovarian reserve decreases and blastocyst aneuploidy rates increase with increasing maternal age, making this task quite complicated in advanced maternal age. Old-fashioned studies suggested an association between COS and embryonic aneuploidy rates. Conversely, recent studies excluded an impact of COS dosage, duration, ovarian response, and ovulation trigger, on blastocyst aneuploidy rate. An aspect, though, needs more clarity: do different gonadotropins impact oocyte competence after COS, comprehensively defined as EBR per cohort of MII-oocytes?
Study design, size, duration
Out of 3169 PGT cycles with ³1 MII oocyte conducted between 2014-2018, we excluded (i)PGT-M/-SR, (ii)women<35yr, (iii)severe-male-factor, (iv)DuoStim or long-active FSH, (v)culture with sequential-media, and (v)multiple cycles. Among the 784 cycles left, a propensity-score-matching (PSM) based on the number of inseminated MII-oocytes was adopted to match patients using recFSH [without (N = 57; 337 MII-oocytes)/with recLH (N = 55; 374 MII-oocytes)] and Human-Menopausal-Gonadotrophin (HMG; N = 127; 835 MII-oocytes). The patients using recFSH+HMG were all included (N = 112; 712 MII-oocytes).
Participants/materials, setting, methods
Only GnRH-antagonist COS, ICSI with fresh MII-oocytes, single culture in continuous-media, trophectoderm biopsy without assisted-hatching, comprehensive-chromosome-testing to assess full-chromosome non-mosaic aneuploidies and vitrified-warmed euploid SET were conducted. Oocyte competence was comprehensively defined as EBR per cohort of MII-oocytes with all intermediate outcomes (fertilization, blastulation and euploidy). LBR per first vitrified-warmed euploid SET and cumulative-LBR per retrieval were also assessed. Generalized-linear-models and multivariate regressions were adopted to adjust the results for confounders. All cycles were concluded.
Main results and the role of chance
Patients using recFSH+recLH and recFSH+HMG (40.7 yr) were older than patients using recFSH-only or HMG-only (40 yr; ANOVA<0.01). No other difference was reported in the 4 patient populations. The overall gonadotrophins dosage (2615±977, 3601±1889, 3818±946 and 2892±911 IU in the recFSH-only, recFSH+recLH, recFSH+HMG and HMG-only groups, respectively) and duration of COS (9.7±1.9, 9.4±1.5, 9.9±1.8 and 10.2±1.8 days) were different (Kruskal-Wallis tests=0.02). The number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes (9.2±6.5) and MII-oocytes collected (6.4±4.4) were instead well-matched across the groups. The EBR per cohort of inseminated MII-oocytes was different in the four groups (20.7±27.1%, 9.6±12.9%, 12.4±18.5% and 16.9±21.8%, respectively), but, when adjusted for maternal age in a generalized-linear-model, the gonadotrophin used for COS did not show any significant association with this outcome (partial-eta2=0.02, p = 0.1, power=0.6). All intermediate embryological outcomes were also similar. The LBR per first vitrified-warmed euploid SET was comparable in the four groups [N = 14/33 (42%), N = 9/22 (41%), N = 26/62 (45%), N = 24/55 (44%), respectively], as confirmed by the logistic regression adjusted for blastocyst quality (multivariate-OR: 0.97, 95%CI 0.73-1.31, adjusted-p=0.9). Lastly, the cumulative-LBRs per retrieval were equivalent [N = 17/57 (30%), N = 14/55 (26%), N = 34/127 (27%), and N = 33/112 (30%), respectively], as confirmed by the logistic regression adjusted for maternal age (multivariate-OR: 1.01, 95%CI 0.8-1.3, adjusted-p=0.9).
Limitations, reasons for caution
The gonadotrophins were chosen based on patient compliance to their administration route and gynecologist judgement, and only qualitative outcomes were assessed. Therefore, randomized-controlled-trials and cost-effectiveness analysis investigating the efficiency in oocyte recruitment and cumulative-LBR per intention-to-treat are needed.
Wider implications of the findings
Different gonadotrophins might not affect MII-oocyte competence. This information is key since, in view of the optimization of follicle recruitment through personalized-COS, it allows more flexibility in the choice of the most suitable protocol. Therefore, gynecologists might ponder also features like patient reproductive history and compliance to different administration routes.
Trial registration number
none
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C Scarafia
- Sant' Anna Hospital- University of Turin, Obstetrics and Gynecology 1U- Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit- Department of Surgical Sciences , Turin, Italy
| | - A Vaiarelli
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF , Rome, Italy
| | - D Cimadomo
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF , Rome, Italy
| | - M.G Amendola
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF , Rome, Italy
| | - S Colamaria
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF , Rome, Italy
| | - C Argento
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF , Rome, Italy
| | - M Giuliani
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF , Rome, Italy
| | - S Ferrero
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF , Rome, Italy
| | | | - A Revelli
- Livet, GeneraLife IVF , Turin, Italy
| | - C Benedetto
- Sant' Anna Hospital- University of Turin, Obstetrics and Gynecology 1U- Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit- Department of Surgical Sciences , Turin, Italy
| | - C Alviggi
- University of Naples Federico II, Department of Neuroscience- Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology , Naples, Italy
| | - A Capalbo
- Igenomix, Igenomix Italy , Marostica, Italy
| | - L Rienzi
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF , Rome, Italy
| | - F.M Ubaldi
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF , Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Colamaria S, Giuliani M, Argento C, Fabozzi G, Ferrero S, Schimberni M, Holte J, Trabucco E, Livi C, Gennarelli G, Bongioanni F, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. P–606 A second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle rescues advanced-maternal-age patients obtaining ≤ 3 blastocysts after the conventional approach by preventing treatment-discontinuation. Hum Reprod 2021. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab130.605] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Study question
Is double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) a valuable strategy to rescue advanced-maternal-age patients obtaining ≤ 3 blastocysts for chromosomal-testing after conventional stimulation?
Summary answer
DuoStim is effective to prevent treatment discontinuation thereby increasing the 1-year cumulative-live-birth-rate among advanced-maternal-age patients obtaining 0–3 blastocysts after a first conventional stimulation.
What is known already
Folliculogenesis is characterized by continuous waves of follicular growth. DuoStim approach exploits these dynamics to conduct two stimulations in a single ovarian cycle and improve the prognosis of advanced-maternal-age and/or reduced-ovarian-reserve women. Independent groups worldwide successfully adopted DuoStim with various regimens reporting similar oocyte/embryo competence after both stimulations. Recently, we have demonstrated the fruitful adoption of DuoStim in patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria, especially because of the prevention of treatment discontinuation. Here we aimed at investigating whether DuoStim can be adopted to rescue poor prognosis patients obtaining 0–3 blastocysts after the conventional approach.
Study design, size, duration
Proof-of-concept matched case-control study. All patients obtaining 0–3 blastocysts after conventional-stimulation between 2015–2018 were proposed DuoStim. The 143 couples who accepted were matched for maternal age, sperm factor, cumulus-oocyte-complexes and blastocysts obtained after the first stimulation to 143 couples who did not. The primary outcome was the 1-year cumulative-live-birth-rate. If not delivering, the control group had 1 year to undergo a second attempt with conventional-stimulation. All treatments were concluded (live-birth achieved or no euploid left).
Participants/materials, setting, methods
Only GnRH-antagonist with recombinant-gonadotrophins and agonist trigger stimulation protocols were adopted. All cycles entailed ICSI with ejaculated sperm, blastocyst culture, trophectoderm biopsy, comprehensive-chromosome-testing and vitrified-warmed euploid single-embryo-transfer(s). Cumulative-live-birth-rate was calculated per patient considering both stimulations in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim group) or up to two stimulations in 1 year (control group). Treatment discontinuation rate in the control group was calculated as patients who did not return for a second stimulation among non-pregnant ones.
Main results and the role of chance
Among the 286 couples included (41.0±2.9yr;4.9±3.1 cumulus-oocytes-complexes and 0.8±0.9 blastocysts), 126 (63 per group), 98 (49 per group), 52 (26 per group) and 10 (5 per group) obtained 0,1,2 and 3 blastocysts after the first stimulation, respectively. The cumulative-live-birth-rate was 9% in the control group after the first attempt (N = 13/143). Among the 130 non-pregnant patients, only 12 returned within 1-year (165±95days later;discontinuation rate=118/130,91%), and 3 delivered. Thus, the cumulative-live-birth-rate from two stimulations in 1-year was 11% (N = 16/143). In the DuoStim group, the cumulative-live-birth-rate was 24% (N = 35/143; Fisher’s-exact-test< 0.01,power=80%). The odds-ratio of delivering in the DuoStim versus the control group adjusted for all matching criteria was 3.3,95%CI:1.6–7.0,p<0.01. This difference (0%,22%,15% and 20% in the control versus 10%,31%,46% and 40% in the DuoStim group among patients obtaining 0,1,2 and 3 blastocysts at the first stimulation, respectively) is mainly due to treatment discontinuation in the control group (98%,65%,77% and 80% among patients obtaining 0,1,2 and 3 blastocysts at the first stimulation, respectively) and the further increased maternal age at the time of second retrieval (∼6 months). Notably, 2 patients delivered 2 live-births after DuoStim (none in the control) and 14 patients with a live-birth have euploid blastocysts left (2 in the control).
Limitations, reasons for caution
Randomized-controlled-trials and cost-effectiveness analyses are desirable to confirm these data. Moreover, 75% of the patients included were >39yr and 44% obtained no blastocyst after the first stimulation. Therefore future studies among younger women and/or more women obtaining ≥1 blastocyst are advisable to set reasonable cut-off values to apply this strategy.
Wider implications of the findings: A second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle might be envisioned as a rescue strategy for poor IVF outcomes after a first stimulation, so to prevent treatment discontinuation and increase the cumulative-live-birth-rate. This is feasible since 6–7 days span the first and the second stimulation in the DuoStim protocol.
Trial registration number
none
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- A Vaiarelli
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - D Cimadomo
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - S Colamaria
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - M Giuliani
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - C Argento
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - G Fabozzi
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - S Ferrero
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | | | - J Holte
- Carl Von Linné Clinic, GeneraLife IVF, Uppsala, Sweden
| | - E Trabucco
- Clinica Ruesch, GeneraLife IVF, Naples, Italy
| | - C Livi
- Demetra, GeneraLife IVF, Florence, Italy
| | | | | | - L Rienzi
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - F M Ubaldi
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Fabozzi G, Cimadomo D, Allori M, Vaiarelli A, Colamaria S, Argento C, Amendola MG, Innocenti F, Soscia D, Maggiulli R, Mazzilli R, Marchetti M, Ubaldi N, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. P–519 Investigation of embryo chromosomal constitution and live birth rate after vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfer across ranges of maternal body-mass-index. Hum Reprod 2021. [DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab130.518] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Study question
Does maternal body-mass-index (BMI) associate with blastocysts’ chromosomal constitution and clinical outcomes in infertile patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A)?
Summary answer
A higher euploidy rate per biopsied blastocyst was reported among underweight women. Overweight women were instead subject to higher miscarriage (MR) and lower live-birth-rates (LBR).
What is known already
Different studies in the literature revealed an association between BMI and infertility, suggesting a J-shaped relationship: both underweight and overweight women can suffer from infertility issues. Even if IVF might increase the success rate in both these categories of patients, it seems insufficient per se to overcome the complex and multifactorial fertility impairment derived from unbalanced nutritional intakes. Miscarriage, in particular, is common in both underweight and overweight women. However, most of the literature is based on chromosomally-untested embryos. Study design, size, duration: Retrospective observational study. Only the first IVF cycle with ≥1 biopsied blastocyst from each woman was included. The primary outcome was the association between maternal BMI (underweight, BMI<18.5, n = 160; normal-weight, BMI=18–25, N = 1392; overweight, BMI>25, N = 259) and the mean euploidy rate per cohort of biopsied blastocysts (m-ER). The secondary outcomes were the association between maternal BMI with clinical (mainly MR and LBR), gestational and perinatal outcomes after first vitrified-warmed single euploid blastocyst transfers.
Participants/materials, setting, methods
We included 1811 women undergoing PGT-A at a private IVF center between April–2013 and March–2020. The secondary outcomes were investigated on 1125 first vitrified-warmed single euploid blastocyst transfers from all patients obtaining ≥1 transferable blastocyst. Only ICSI with ejaculated sperm and continuous culture in standard incubators were performed. Logistic regressions were conducted to identify putative confounders and adjust the results accordingly.
Main results and the role of chance
Except for a lower maternal age among underweight women (38.3±3.1 versus 38.9±3.4 yr, p < 0.01) and higher among overweight ones (39.3±3.6 yr, p = 0.04), no difference was reported with respect to normal-weight women in terms of duration of infertility, hormonal levels, main cause of infertility, sperm quality, and reproductive history. The mean number of biopsied blastocysts was ∼3 in all groups. The m-ER shows a decreasing trend as the maternal BMI increases between 17 and 22–23, to then plateau. In fact, a significant difference was reported between underweight (50.8%±36.4%) and normal-weight women (41.4%±37.5%, p < 0.01). A linear regression adjusted for maternal age confirmed this moderate association between increasing BMI and m-ER (unstandardized-coefficient-B –0.6%, 95%CI:–1.1% to –0.1%, p = 0.02).
Morphological quality and day of full-blastulation among transferred euploid blastocysts was similar in the three groups. Overweight women showed higher MR per pregnancy (N = 20/75, 26.7%, 95%CI:17.4%–38.3% versus N = 67/461, 14.5%, 95%CI:11.5%–18.2%; OR 2.0, 95%CI:1.1–3.6, p = 0.01) and lower LBR per transfer (N = 55/154, 35.7%, 95%CI:28.3%–43.8% versus N = 388/859, 45.2%, 95%CI:41.8%–48.6%; OR adjusted for euploid blastocysts’ features 0.67, 95%CI:0.46–0.96, p = 0.03). Clinical outcomes were instead similar among underweight and normal-weight women. All gestational and perinatal outcomes were comparable in the tree groups.
Limitations, reasons for caution
Our study is limited by its retrospective nature, and the fact that maternal BMI was measured only before oocyte retrieval and not before embryo transfer. Moreover, the reduced sample size did not allow for further relevant sub-analyses among solely obese women.
Wider implications of the findings: When possible nutritional/lifestyle modifications should be encouraged to adjust maternal BMI before IVF. Overweight patients should be especially informed of their higher risk for miscarriage. Yet, BMI is just a gross marker, future studies based on body fat localization and percentage (e.g. by bioelectrical impedance analyses) are desirable.
Trial registration number
None
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- G Fabozzi
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - D Cimadomo
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - M Allori
- University Carlo Bo, Faculty of Biology, Urbino, Italy
| | - A Vaiarelli
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - S Colamaria
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - C Argento
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - M G Amendola
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - F Innocenti
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - D Soscia
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - R Maggiulli
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - R Mazzilli
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - M Marchetti
- University of Rome Tor Vergata, Biomedicine and Prevention, Rome, Italy
| | - N Ubaldi
- Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, Rome, Italy
| | - L Rienzi
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| | - F M Ubaldi
- Clinica Valle Giulia, GeneraLife IVF, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Secchi F, Cannao P, Pluchinotta F, Butera G, Carminati M, Sardanelli F, Lombardi M, Monney P, Piccini D, Rutz T, Vincenti G, Coppo S, Koestner S, Stuber M, Schwitter J, Romana P, Francesco S, Gianfranco B, Mario C, Francesco S, Massimo L, Alizadeh Sani Z, Vojdan-Parast M, Alimohammadi M, Sarafan-Sadeghi S, Seifi A, Fallahabadi H, Karami Tanha F, Jamshidi M, Hesamy M, Bonello B, Sorensen C, Fouilloux V, Gorincour G, Mace L, Fraisse A, Jacquier A, de Meester C, Amzulescu M, Bouzin C, Boileau L, Melchior J, Boulif J, Lazam S, Pasquet A, Vancrayenest D, Vanoverschelde J, Gerber B, Loudon M, Bull S, Bissell M, Joseph J, Neubauer S, Myerson S, Dorniak K, Hellmann M, Rawicz-Zegrzda D, W sierska M, Sabisz A, Szurowska E, Heiberg E, Dudziak M, Kwok T, Chin C, Dweck M, Hadamitzky M, Nadjiri J, Hendrich E, Pankalla C, Will A, Schunkert H, Martinoff S, Sonne C, Pepe A, Meloni A, Terrazzino F, Spasiano A, Filosa A, Bitti P, Tangari C, Restaino G, Resta M, Ricchi P, Meloni A, Tudisca C, Grassedonio E, Positano V, Piraino B, Romano N, Keilberg P, Midiri M, Pepe A, Meloni A, Positano V, Macchi S, Ambrosio D, De Marchi D, Chiodi E, Resta M, Salvatori C, Pepe A, Artang R, Bogachkov A, Botelho M, Bou-Ayache J, Vazquez M, Carr J, Collins J, Maret E, Ahlander B, Bjorklund P, Engvall J, Cimermancic R, Inage A, Mizuno N, Positano V, Meloni A, Santarelli M, Izzi G, Maddaloni D, De Marchi D, Salvatori C, Landini L, Pepe A, Pepe A, Meloni A, Carulli G, Oliva E, Arcioni F, Fraticelli V, Toia P, Renne S, Restaino G, Salvatori C, Rizzo M, Reinstadler S, Klug G, Feistritzer H, Aschauer A, Schocke M, Franz W, Metzler B, Melonil A, Positanol V, Roccamo G, Argento C, Benni M, De Marchil D, Missere M, Prezios P, Salvatoril C, Pepel A, Meloni A, Rossi G, Positano V, Cirotto C, Filati G, Toia P, Preziosi P, De Marchi D, Pepe A, Mongeon F, Fischer K, Teixeira T, Friedrich M, Marcotte F, Vincenti G, Monney P, Rutz T, Zenge M, Schmidt M, Nadar M, Chevre P, Rohner C, Schwitter J, Mouratoglou S, Kallifatidis A, Giannakoulas G, Grapsa J, Kamperidis V, Pitsiou G, Stanopoulos I, Hadjimiltiades S, Karvounis H, Ahmed N, Lawton C, Ghosh Dastidar A, Frontera A, Jackson A, Cripps T, Diab I, Duncan E, Thomas G, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Kannoly S, Gosling O, Ninan T, Fulford J, Dalrymple-Haym M, Shore A, Bellenger N, Alegret J, Beltran R, Martin M, Mendoza M, Elisabetta C, Teresa C, Zairo F, Marcello N, Clorinda M, Bruna M, Vincenzo P, Alessia P, Giorgio B, Klug G, Feistritzer H, Reinstadler S, Mair J, Schocke M, Kremser C, Franz W, Metzler B, Aschauer S, Tufaro C, Kammerlander A, Pfaffenberger S, Marzluf B, Bonderman D, Mascherbauer J, Kliegel A, Sailer A, Brustbauer R, Sedivy R, Mayr H, Manessi M, Castelvecchio S, Votta E, Stevanella M, Menicanti L, Secchi F, Sardanelli F, Lombardi M, Redaelli A, Reiter U, Reiter G, Kovacs G, Greiser A, Olschewski H, Fuchsjager M, Kammerlander A, Tufaro C, Pfaffenberger S, Marzluf B, Aschauer S, Babayev J, Bonderman D, Mascherbauer J, Mlynarski R, Mlynarska A, Sosnowski M, Pontone G, Bertella E, Petulla M, Russo E, Innocenti E, Baggiano A, Mushtaq S, Gripari P, Andreini D, Tondo C, Nyktari E, Izgi C, Haidar S, Wage R, Keegan J, Wong T, Mohiaddin R, Durante A, Rimoldi O, Laforgia P, Gianni U, Benedetti G, Cava M, Damascelli A, Laricchia A, Ancona M, Aurelio A, Pizzetti G, Esposito A, Margonato A, Colombo A, De Cobelli F, Camici P, Zvaigzne L, Sergejenko S, Kal js O, Kannoly S, Ripley D, Swarbrick D, Gosling O, Hossain E, Chawner R, Moore J, Shore A, Bellenger N, Aquaro G, Barison A, Masci P, Todiere G, Strata E, Barison A, Di Bella G, Monasterio F, Feistritzer H, Reinstadler S, Klug G, Kremser C, Schocke M, Franz W, Metzler B, Levelt E, Mahmod M, Ntusi N, Ariga R, Upton R, Piechnick S, Francis J, Schneider J, Stoll V, Davis A, Karamitsos T, Leeson P, Holloway C, Clarke K, Neubauer S, Karwat K, Tomala M, Miszalski-Jamka K, Mrozi ska S, Kowalczyk M, Mazur W, Kereiakes D, Nessler J, Zmudka K, Ja wiec P, Miszalski-Jamka T, Ben Yaacoub-Kzadri I, Harguem S, Bennaceur R, Ganzoui I, Ben Miled A, Mnif N, Rodriguez Palomares J, Ortiz J, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Tejedor P, Lee D, Wu E, Bonow R, Khanji M, Castiello T, Westwood M, Petersen S, Pepe A, Meloni A, Carulli G, Oliva E, Arcioni F, Storti S, Grassedonio E, Renne S, Missere M, Positano V, Rizzo M, Meloni A, Quota A, Smacchia M, Paci C, Positano V, Vallone A, Valeri G, Chiodi E, keilberg P, Pepe A, Barison A, De Marchi D, Gargani L, Aquaro G, Guiducci S, Pugliese N, Lombardi M, Pingitore A, Cole B, Douglas H, Rodden S, Horan P, Harbinson M, Johnston N, Dixon L, Choudhary P, Hsu C, Grieve S, Semsarian C, Richmond D, Celermajer D, Puranik R, Hinojar Baydes R, Varma N, Goodman B, Khan S, Arroyo Ucar E, Dabir D, Schaeffter T, Nagel E, Puntmann V, Hinojar R, Ucar E, Ngah N, Kuo N, D'Cruz D, Gaddum N, Schaeffter T, Nagel E, Puntmann V, Hinojar R, Foote L, Arroyo Ucar E, Dabir D, Schnackenburg B, Higgins D, Schaeffter T, Nagel E, Puntmann V, Nucifora G, Muser D, Morocutti G, Gianfagna P, Zanuttini D, Piccoli G, Proclemer A, Nucifora G, Prati G, Vitrella G, Allocca G, Buttignoni S, Muser D, Morocutti G, Delise P, Proclemer A, Sinagra G, Silva G, Almeida A, David C, Francisco A, Magalhaes A, Placido R, Menezes M, Guimaraes T, Mendes A, Nunes Diogo A, Aneq M, Maret E, Engvall J, Douglas H, Cole B, Rodden S, Horan P, Harbinson M, Dixon L, Johnston N, Papavassiliu T, Sandberg R, Schimpf R, Schoenberg S, Borggrefe M, Doesch C, Khan S, Tamin S, Tan L, Joshi S, Khan S, Memon S, Tamin S, Tan L, Joshi S, Tangcharoen T, Prasertkulchai W, Yamwong S, Sritara P, Hinojar R, Foote L, Arroyo Ucar E, Binti Ngah N, Cruz D, Schnackenburg B, Higgins D, Schaeffter T, Nagel E, Puntmann V, Nucifora G, Muser D, Masci P, Barison A, Rebellato L, Piccoli G, Daleffe E, Zanuttini D, Facchin D, Lombardi M, Proclemer A, Melao F, Paiva M, Pinho T, Martins E, Vasconcelos M, Madureira A, Macedo F, Ramos I, Maciel M, Agoston-Coldea L, Marjanovic Z, Hadj Khelifa S, Kachenoura N, Lupu S, Soulat G, Farge-Bancel D, Mousseaux E, Ben Yaacoub-Kzadri I, Harguem S, Bennaceur R, Ben Miled A, Mnif N, Dastidar A, Ahmed N, Frontera A, Lawton C, Augustine D, McAlindon E, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Vasconcelos M, Leite S, Sousa C, Pinho T, Rangel I, Madureira A, Ramos I, Maciel M, El ghannudi S, Lefoulon A, Noel E, Germain P, Doutreleau S, Jeung M, Gangi A, Roy C, Todiere G, Pisciella L, Barison A, Zachara E, Federica R, Emdin M, Aquaro G, El ghannudi S, Lefoulon A, Noel E, Germain P, Doutreleau S, Jeung M, Gangi A, Roy C, Baydes R, Ucar E, Foote L, Dabir D, Mahmoud I, Jackson T, Schaeffter T, Higgins D, Nagel E, Puntmann V, Melao F, Paiva M, Pinho T, Martins E, Vasconcelos M, Madureira A, Macedo F, Ramos I, Maciel M. These abstracts have been selected for VIEWING only as ePosters and in print. ePosters will be available on Screen A & B throughout the meeting, Print Posters at the times indicated below. Please refer to the PROGRAM for more details. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2014. [DOI: 10.1093/ehjci/jeu085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
|