DuoStim cycles potentially boost reproductive outcomes in poor prognosis patients

References

• Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA. A new model for ovarian follicular development during the human menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(1):116–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ginther OJ, Gastal EL, Gastal MO, et al. Comparative study of the dynamics of follicular waves in mares and women. Biol Reprod. 2004;71(4):1195–1201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuang Y, Hong Q, Chen Q, et al. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):105–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• von Wolff M, Thaler CJ, Frambach T, et al. Ovarian stimulation to cryopreserve fertilized oocytes in cancer patients can be started in the luteal phase. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(4):1360–1365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaiarelli A, Venturella R, Vizziello D, et al. Dual ovarian stimulation and random start in assisted reproductive technologies: from ovarian biology to clinical application. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;29(3):153–159.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, et al. Follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation during the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim) in a reduced ovarian reserve population results in a similar euploid blastocyst formation rate: new insight in ovarian reserve exploitation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1488–1495.e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moffat R, Pirtea P, Gayet V, et al. Dual ovarian stimulation is a new viable option for enhancing the oocyte yield when the time for assisted reproductive technology is limited. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(6):659–661.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuang Y, Chen Q, Hong Q, et al. Double stimulations during the follicular and luteal phases of poor responders in IVF/ICSI programmes (Shanghai protocol). Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29(6):684–691.
   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
• Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Trabucco E, et al. Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) to maximize the number of oocytes retrieved from poor prognosis patients: a multicenter experience and SWOT analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tsampras N, Gould D, Fitzgerald CT. Double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) protocol for fertility preservation in female oncology patients. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017;20(4):248–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu C, Jiang H, Zhang W, et al. Double ovarian stimulation during the follicular and luteal phase in women ≥38 years: a retrospective case-control study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(6):678–684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alsbjerg B, Haahr T, Elbaek HO, et al. Dual stimulation using corifollitropin alfa in 54 Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders – a case series. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38(5):677–682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devroey P, Boostanfar R, Koper NP, et al. A double-blind, non-inferiority RCT comparing corifollitropin alfa and recombinant FSH during the first seven days of ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(12):3063–3072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Colamaria S, et al. Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(8):1442–1448.
   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
• Esteves SC, Roque M, Bedoschi GM, et al. Defining low prognosis patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology: POSEIDON Criteria—the why. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2005–2008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016;31:dev316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buendgen NK, Schultze-Mosgau A, Cordes T, et al. Initiation of ovarian stimulation independent of the menstrual cycle: a case-control study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288(4):901–904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang N, Wang Y, Chen Q, et al. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs conventional ovarian stimulation in patients with normal ovarian reserve treated for IVF: a large retrospective cohort study. Clin Endocrinol. 2016;84(5):720–728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen H, Wang Y, Lyu Q, et al. Comparison of live-birth defects after luteal-phase ovarian stimulation vs. conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization and vitrified embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(5):1194–1201.e2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niederberger C, Pellicer A, Cohen J, et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(2):185–324.e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stocking K, Wilkinson J, Lensen S, et al. Are interventions in reproductive medicine assessed for plausible and clinically relevant effects? A systematic review of power and precision in trials and meta-analyses. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(4):659–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar