Pregnancy rate in IVF patients with unexpected poor response to ovarian stimulation

References

• Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria†. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–1624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1768–1774.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLernon DJ, Steyerberg EW, te Velde ER, et al. Predicting the chances of a live birth after one or more complete cycles of in vitro fertilisation: population based study of linked cycle data from 113 873 women. BMJ. 2016;355:i5735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Loendersloot LL, van Wely M, Limpens J, et al. Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(6):577–589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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(4):661–670.e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number), et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1452–1453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leijdekkers JA, Eijkemans MJC, van Tilborg TC, OPTIMIST study group, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(6):1030–1041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdullah RK, Liu N, Zhao Y, et al. Cumulative live-birth, perinatal and obstetric outcomes for POSEIDON groups after IVF/ICSI cycles: a single-center retrospective study. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):11822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang R, Zhang C, Chen L, et al. Cumulative live birth rate of low prognosis patients with POSEIDON stratification: a single-Centre data analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(5):834–844.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seven B, Gulerman C, Ozgu-Erdinc AS, et al. Live birth rates of low prognosis patients according to POSEIDON criteria; a retrospective cohort study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2020;49(7):101817.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi W, Zhou H, Tian L, et al. Cumulative live birth rates of good and low prognosis patients according to POSEIDON criteria: a single center analysis of 18,455 treatment cycles. Front Endocrinol. 2019;10:409.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chinta P, Antonisamy B, Mangalaraj AM, et al. POSEIDON classification and the proposed treatment options for groups 1 and 2: time to revisit? A retrospective analysis of 1425 ART cycles. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021(1):hoaa070.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nelson SM, Klein BM, Arce J-C. Comparison of antimüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as predictor of ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation in good-prognosis patients at individual fertility clinics in two multicenter trials. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(4):923–930.e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balaban B, Brison D, Calderon G, Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology, et al. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(6):1270–1283.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nargund G, Fauser BCJM. Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF is the smartest way forward. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(4):569–571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Comparison of pregnancy rates for poor responders using IVF with mild ovarian stimulation versus conventional IVF: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:993–999.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Datta AK, Maheshwari A, Felix N, et al. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2021;27(2):229–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montoya-Botero P, Drakopoulos P, González-Foruria I, et al. Fresh and cumulative live birth rates in mild versus conventional stimulation for IVF cycles in poor ovarian responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021(1):hoaa066.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Xu B, Chen Y, Geerts D, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in more than 3,000 patients with poor ovarian response: a 15-year survey of final in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(6):1051–1059.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drakopoulos P, Bardhi E, Boudry L, et al. Update on the management of poor ovarian response in IVF: the shift from Bologna criteria to the Poseidon concept. Clin Med Insights Reprod Health. 2020;14:263349412094148.
   Google Scholar
• Li F, Ye T, Kong H, et al. Efficacies of different ovarian hyperstimulation protocols in poor ovarian responders classified by the POSEIDON criteria. Aging (Albany, NY). 2020;12(10):9354–9364.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gruhn JR, Zielinska AP, Shukla V, et al. Chromosome errors in human eggs shape natural fertility over reproductive life span. Science. 2019;365(6460):1466–1469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Younis JS, Iskander R, Fauser BCJM, et al. Does an association exist between menstrual cycle length within the normal range and ovarian reserve biomarkers during the reproductive years? A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26(6):904–928.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi-Setti PE, Zerbetto I, Baggiani A, et al. An observational retrospective cohort trial on 4,828 IVF cycles evaluating different low prognosis patients following the POSEIDON criteria. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar