Is there a place for natural or modified natural cycles?

References

• Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet2(8085), 366 (1978).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nargund G, Fauser BC, Macklon NS, Ombelet W, Nygren K, Frydman R; Rotterdam ISMAAR Consensus Group on Terminology for Ovarian Stimulation for IVF. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum. Reprod.22(11), 2801–2804 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Land JA, Yarmolinskaya MI, Dumoulin JC, Evers JL. High-dose human menopausal gonadotropin. Fertil. Steril.65, 961–965 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karande V, Morris R, Rinehart J, Miller C, Rao R, Gleicher N. Limited success using the “flare” protocol in poor responders in cycles with low basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels during in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril.67(5), 900–903 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreno C, Ruiz A, Simon C, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection as a routine indication in low responder patients. Hum. Reprod.13(8), 2126–2129 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keay SD, Lenton EA, Cooke ID, Hull MG, Jenkins JM. Low-dose dexamethasone augments the ovarian response to exogenous gonadotrophins leading to a reduction in cycle cancellation rate in a standard IVF programme. Hum. Reprod.16(9), 1861–1865 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitwally MF, Casper RF. Aromatase inhibition improves ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone in poor responders. Fertil. Steril.77(4), 776–780 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lok IH, Yip SK, Cheung LP et al. Adjuvant low-dose aspirin therapy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Fertil. Steril.81(3), 556–561 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rongières-Bertrand C, Olivennes F, Righini C, et al. Revival of the natural cycles in in vitro fertilization with the use of a new gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (Cetrorelix): a pilot study with minimal stimulation. Hum. Reprod.14(3), 683–688 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daya S, Gunby J, Hughes EG, Collins JA, Sagle MA, YoungLai EV. Natural cycles for in vitro fertilization: cost–effectiveness analysis and factors influencing outcome. Hum. Reprod.10(7), 1719–1724 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendez Lozano DH, Fanchin R, Chevalier N et al. The follicular flushing duplicate the pregnancy rate on semi natural cycle IVF. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. (Paris)36(1), 36–41 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bassil S, Godin PA, Donnez J. Outcome of in vitro fertilization through natural cycles in poor responders. Hum. Reprod.14(5), 1262–1265 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janssens RM, Lambalk CB, Vermeiden JP, Schats R, Schoemaker J. In vitro fertilization in a spontaneous cycle: easy, cheap and realistic. Hum. Reprod.15(2), 314–318 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Ferrero S et al. Management of poor responders in IVF. Reprod. Biomed. Online10(2), 235–246 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castelo Branco A, Achour-Frydman N, Kadoch J, Fanchin R, Tachdjian G, Frydman R. In vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in seminatural cycles for patients with ovarian aging. Fertil. Steril.84(4), 875–880 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelinck MJ, Hoek A, Simons AH, Heineman MJ. Efficacy of natural cycle IVF: a review of the literature. Hum. Reprod. Update8(2), 129–139 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nargund G, Waterstone J, Bland J, Philips Z, Parsons J, Campbell S. Cumulative conception and live birth rates in natural (unstimulated) IVF cycles. Hum. Reprod.16(2), 259–262 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgia F, Sbracia M, Schimberni M et al. A controlled trial of natural cycle versus microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog flare cycles in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil. Steril.81(6), 1542–1547 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fauser BC, Devroey P, Yen SS, Gosden R, Crowley WF Jr, Baird DT. Minimal ovarian stimulation for IVF: appraisal of potential benefit and drawbacks. Hum. Reprod.14, 2681–2686 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum. Reprod.22(4), 980–988 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziebe S, Bangsboll S, Schmidt KL, Loft A, Lindhard A, Nyboe Andersen A. Embryo quality in natural versus stimulated IVF cycles. Hum. Reprod.19(6), 1457–1460 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basir GS, O WS, Ng EH, Ho PC. Morphometric analysis of peri-implantation endometrium in patients having excessively high oestradiol concentrations after ovarian stimulation. Hum. Reprod.16(3), 435–440 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devroey P, Bourgain C, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity. Trends Endocrinol. Metab.15(2), 84–90 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb BA, Paulson RJ. The luteal phase of cycles utilizing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and the possible impact of this hyperstimulation on embryo implantation. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.176(6), 1262–1267 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Impact of ovarian hyperstimulation on the luteal phase. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl.55, 101–108 (2000).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tavaniotou A, Albano C, Smitz J, Devroey P. Impact of ovarian stimulation on corpus luteum function and embryonic implantation. J. Reprod. Immunol.55(1–2), 123–130 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horcajadas JA, Riesewijk A, Polman J et al. Effect of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF on endometrial gene expression profiles. Mol. Hum. Reprod.11(3), 195–205 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oehninger S. Revealing the enigmas of implantation: what is the true impact of ovarian hyperstimulation? Fertil. Steril.89(1), 27–30 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martínez-Conejero JA, Simón C, Pellicer A, Horcajadas JA. Is ovarian stimulation detrimental to the endometrium. Reprod. Biomed. Online15(1), 45–50 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lédée-Bataille N, Dubanchet S, Kadoch J, Castelo-Branco A, Frydman R, Chaouat G. Controlled natural in vitro fertilization may be an alternative for patients with repeated unexplained implantation failure and a high uterine natural killer cell count. Fertil. Steril.82(1), 234–236 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lukassen HG, Joosten I, van Cranenbroek B et al. Hormonal stimulation for IVF treatment positively affects the CD56bright/CD56dim NK cell ratio of the endometrium during the window of implantation. Mol. Hum. Reprod.10(7), 513–520 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelinck MJ, Vogel NE, Hoek A et al. Cumulative pregnancy rates after three cycles of minimal stimulation IVF and results according to subfertility diagnosis: a multicentre cohort study. Hum. Reprod.21(9), 2375–2383 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duckitt K, Templeton AA. Cancer in women with infertility. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol.10(3), 199–203 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SJ, Schover LR, Partridge AH et al., American Society of Clinical Oncology. American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations on fertility preservation in cancer patients. J. Clin. Oncol.24(18), 2917–2931 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delvigne A, Rozenberg S. Epidemiology and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): a review. Hum. Reprod. Update8(6), 559–577 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chan WS, Dixon ME. The “ART” of thromboembolism: a review of assisted reproductive technology and thromboembolic complications. Thromb. Res.121(6), 713–726 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnani B, Tsen L, Datta S, Bader A. In vitro fertilization. Do short-term changes in estrogen levels produce increased fibrinolysis? Am. J. Clin. Pathol.112(4), 485–491 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aurousseau MH, Samama MM, Belhassen A, Herve F, Hugues JN. Risk of thromboembolism in relation to an in vitro fertilization programme: three case reports. Hum. Reprod.10(1), 94–97 (1995).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curvers J, Nienhuis SJ, Nap AW, Hamulyák K, Evers JL, Rosing J. Activated protein C resistance during in vitro fertilization treatment. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.95(2), 222–224 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yinon Y, Pauzner R, Dulitzky M, Elizur SE, Dor J, Shulman A. Safety of IVF under anticoagulant therapy in patients at risk for thrombo-embolic events. Reprod. Biomed. Online12(3), 354–358 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ombelet W, Campo R. Affordable IVF for developing countries. Reprod. Biomed. Online15(3), 257–265 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, De Klerk C et al. A mild treatment strategy for in vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet369(9563), 743–749 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar