Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI

27Citations
Citations of this article
45Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background/Aim: Mild stimulation protocols have been implemented to be offered to subfertile patients who respond poorly to ovarian stimulation. We aimed to compare the efficacy of mild versus conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-Agonist and antagonist protocols in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles. Patients and Methods: A total of 58 poorlyresponding patients were divided into two groups: mild group (n=33), receiving clomiphene citrate 100 mg and 0.25 mg of cetrorelix with 150 IU of gonadotrophins daily; conventional group (n=25), undergoing the long GnRHagonist or-Antagonist protocols. The primary outcome was the number of cumulus oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved. Results: A lower number of COCs [median (range)=1 (0-4) vs. 3 (0-8.4), p<0.001] was retrieved in the mild stimulation compared to the conventional group. Secondary outcomes favored the conventional group, whereas live birth (9.1% vs. 12%), clinical pregnancy (12.1% vs. 20%) and miscarriage rate (40% vs. 40%) were similar in the two groups. Conclusion: Mild ovarian stimulation is inferior to conventional regimes when applied to poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI, in terms of the numbers of retrieved COCs.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Siristatidis, C., Salamalekis, G., Dafopoulos, K., Basios, G., Vogiatzi, P., & Papantoniou, N. (2017). Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI. In Vivo, 31(2), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11050

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free