Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Minimal ovarian stimulation is an alternative to conventional protocols for older women according to Poseidon's stratification: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.
Cozzolino, Mauro; Cecchino, Gustavo Nardini; Bosch, Ernesto; Garcia-Velasco, Juan Antonio; Garrido, Nicolás.
Affiliation
  • Cozzolino M; IVI Foundation, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe (IIS La Fe), Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 - Torre A, Planta 1ª, 46026, Valencia, Spain. mauro.cozzolino@ivirma.com.
  • Cecchino GN; Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, 310 Cedar St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. mauro.cozzolino@ivirma.com.
  • Bosch E; Rey Juan Carlos University, Calle Tulipán, 28933, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain. mauro.cozzolino@ivirma.com.
  • Garcia-Velasco JA; Rey Juan Carlos University, Calle Tulipán, 28933, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain.
  • Garrido N; Department of Gynaecology, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
J Assist Reprod Genet ; 38(7): 1799-1807, 2021 Jul.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33851314
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate whether minimal ovarian stimulation (mOS) is as effective as conventional ovarian stimulation (cOS) for older women belonging to different groups according to the Poseidon criteria. MATERIAL AND

METHODS:

Observational retrospective multicentre cohort including women from Poseidon's groups 2 and 4 that underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression model, adding as a random effect the patients and the stimulation cycle considering the dependence of data. Survival curves were employed as a measure of the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). The primary outcomes were live birth rate per embryo transfer and CLBR per consecutive embryo transfer and oocyte consumed until a live birth was achieved.

RESULTS:

A total of 2002 patients underwent 3056 embryo transfers (mOS = 497 and cOS = 2559). The live birth rates per embryo transfer in mOS and cOS showed no significant difference in both Poseidon's groups. Likewise, the logistic regression showed similar live birth rates between the two protocols in Poseidon's groups 2 (OR 1.165, 95% CI 0.77-1.77; p = 0.710) and 4 (OR 1.264 95% CI 0.59-2.70; p = 0.387). However, the survival curves showed higher CLBR per oocyte in women that received mOS (Poseidon group 2 p < 0.001 and Poseidon group 4 p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS:

Minimal ovarian stimulation is a good alternative to COS as a first-line treatment for patients belonging to Poseidon's groups 2 and 4. The number of oocytes needed to achieve a live birth seems inferior in mOS strategy than cOS.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ovulation Induction / Birth Rate Type of study: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Pregnancy Language: En Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Year: 2021 Document type: Article

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Ovulation Induction / Birth Rate Type of study: Etiology_studies / Guideline / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Limits: Adult / Female / Humans / Pregnancy Language: En Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Year: 2021 Document type: Article