Estimulación ovárica en síndrome de Mayer-Rokitansky: reporte de caso y revisión de la literatura / Controlled ovarian stimulation in Mayer-Rokitansky syndrome: case report and literature review

Resumen El síndrome de Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser (SMRKH) es una anomalía del tracto genital femenino caracterizada por ausencia congénita del útero y porción superior de la vagina. Ocurre en uno de cada 4,500 nacimientos y se diagnostica normalmente durante la adolescencia al presentarse amenorrea primaria. Su función ovárica está preservada, pero la información actual respecto al potencial reproductivo de estas pacientes es limitada. Se presenta el caso de una mujer con diagnóstico de SMRKH sometida a estimulación ovárica para transferencia de embriones a útero subrogado y se discute su potencial reproductivo: técnicas de reproducción asistida, intervenciones e impacto psicológico.

Abstract Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome (MRKH) is a congenital anomaly of the female genital tract characterized by congenital absence of the uterus and upper part of the vagina. It occurs in 4,500 female births and diagnosis is usually made during adolescence when primary amenorrhea presents. They have functioning ovaries but data regarding their reproductive potential is limited. We hereby report the case of a woman diagnosed with MRKH syndrome in whom assisted reproductive techniques were used to try to achieve pregnancy by gestational surrogacy and their reproductive potential is discussed: assisted reproductive techniques, procedures, and psychological impact.

Conceptos básicos en inmunología de la reproducción: revisión narrativa de la bibliografía / Basic concepts in reproductive immunology: a narrative review of the literature

Resumen: ANTECEDENTES: La inmunología de la reproducción no es un área nueva: siempre ha estado relacionada con el aborto recurrente y con la falla repetida en la implantación, sobre todo en el contexto de una fertilización in vitro. Recientemente emergieron nuevos conceptos importantes que los ginecoobstetras deben considerar. OBJETIVO: Interrelacionar los conceptos básicos de inmunología, embriología y reproducción asistida para comprender mejor lo que la primera puede resolver y lo que no. METODOLOGÍA: Estudio retrospectivo efectuado con base en la búsqueda electrónica, llevada a cabo en febrero de 2020 en las bases de datos: PubMed y Google Scholar con los siguientes términos (MeSH): abortion, spontaneous/immunology; embryo implantation/immunology; HLA-c antigens/immunology; immune tolerance/immunology; immunity, maternally-acquired/immunology; uterus/immunology; killer cells, natural/immunology; placentation/immunology; receptors, kir/immunology; antigen presentation/genetics; antigen presentation/immunology; maternal-fetal exchange/genetics; maternal-fetal exchange/immunology. RESULTADOS: Se reunieron 289 artículos y se eliminaron 248 por no cumplir con los criterios de inclusión; solo se analizaron 41. Los artículos identificados sirvieron de base para actualizar la situación de la inmunología en el contexto de la medicina de la reproducción. Durante el proceso se revisaron otros artículos que sirvieran de soporte bibliográfico a los conceptos descritos en esta revisión. CONCLUSIONES: Debido al destacado interés en el estudio de la genética de los embriones, la medicina de la reproducción se enfocó más en ella y dejó de lado a la inmunología. Sin embargo, como la genética sigue sin poder explicar de manera adecuada las fallas en la implantación, la inmunología de la reproducción vuelve a cobrar impulso.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Reproductive immunology is not a new area in reproductive medicine, it has always been related to recurrent miscarriage and repeated implantation failure, especially in the context of IVF. Recently, new concepts have emerged that are important for OBGYN specialists to keep in mind. OBJECTIVE: Interrelating the basic concepts of immunology, embryology and assisted reproduction to better understand what the former can and cannot solve. METHODOLOGY: Retrospective study based on the electronic search, carried out in February 2020, in the databases: PubMed and Google Scholar with the following terms (MeSH) The following MeSH terms were used: Abortion, Spontaneous/immunology; Embryo Implantation/immunology; HLA-C Antigens/immunology; Immune Tolerance/immunology; Immunity, Maternally-Acquired/immunology; Uterus/immunology; Killer Cells, Natural/immunology; Placentation/immunology; Receptors, KIR/immunology; Antigen Presentation/genetics; Antigen Presentation/immunology; Maternal-Fetal Exchange/genetics; Maternal-Fetal Exchange/immunology. RESULTS: 289 articles were collected, and 248 articles were deleted because they did not meet the inclusion criteria; only 41 were analyzed. The articles identified served as a basis for updating the status of immunology in the context of reproductive medicine. During the process, other articles were reviewed to serve as bibliographic support for the concepts described in this review. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the outstanding interest in the study of embryo genetics, reproductive medicine focused more on it and left immunology aside. However, since genetics still cannot adequately explain implantation failures, reproductive immunology is gaining momentum again.

Desogestrel versus antagonist injections for LH suppression in oocyte donation cycles: a crossover study.

To study whether ovarian response to corifollitropin among oocyte donors (OD) is different when oral desogestrel (DSG) is used to block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge when compared to GnRH-antagonist use. This is a retrospective, cohort study at a private, university-based, IVF center including 35 OD. Patients underwent two stimulation cycles under corifollitropin alfa (CFT), one under an antagonist and another under DSG, between February 2015 and May 2017. In antagonist cycles, daily ganirelix was administered since a leading follicle reached 14 mm. In the DSG cycles, daily oral DSG was prescribed. The main outcome measure was oocytes retrieved. Compared to antagonist cycles, cycles under DSG received fewer injections (10.3 ± 2.8 vs. 5.0 ± 2.1, p < .001), nominally lower total supplementary gonadotropin dose (497.4 ± 338.9I U vs. 442.9 ± 332.8 IU, p=.45) with a lower total cost of medication (1018.6 ± 191.0€ vs. 813.8 ± 145.9€, p<.001). There were no differences in the total number of retrieved oocytes between groups (17.4 ± 7.5 vs. 18.6 ± 8.9, p=.34). In the corresponding oocyte recipients, clinical pregnancy rate was similar between groups: 52.0% vs. 58.6%, respectively (p=.78). ODs' stimulation's response under DSG is similar when compared to (17.4 ± 7.5 vs. 18.6 ± 8.9, p=.34) but associated with less injections and lower medication costs. The main advantage of this strategy is its simplicity, an aspect of utmost importance in the management of ODs.

Ovarian response in oocyte donation cycles under LH suppression with GnRH antagonist or desogestrel progestin: retrospective and comparative study.

Here are investigated the serum hormones in ovarian stimulation cycles of oocyte donors (OD), under endogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) suppression with GnRH antagonist (antGnRH) vs. desogestrel (DSG) (progesterone-primed [PP]). OD underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins at a private, university-based, infertility center between January 2017 and March 2018. Endogenous LH peak was controlled with either daily injections of antGnRH or with daily oral 75 mcg DSG (PP) until triggering. LH and progesterone were measured at trigger and the following day. A total of 404 OD cycles were included. There were no differences in age (26.7 ± 4.9 vs. 27.1 ± 4.8 years), AMH (3.7 ± 2.1 vs. 4.1 ± 2.7 ng/ml), and body mass index (BMI) (22.4 ± 2.8 vs. 22.1 ± 3.0 kg/m2) between PP and antGnRH groups, respectively. On the day of trigger, progesterone was lower in PP compared to antGnRH (0.9 ± 0.7, vs. 1.5 ± 1.2 ng/ml, p < .001), whereas no significant differences existed in estradiol or LH. On the day after trigger, lower progesterone in PP vs. antGnRH (10.8 ± 6.0 vs. 13.4 ± 7.9 ng/ml, p=.002) was observed. No differences were observed in the number of retrieved oocytes or the clinical pregnancies among recipients. Our study shows that endocrine response to DSG differs significantly as compared to antGnRH use for the control of endogenous LH without apparent impact on number of retrieved oocytes or the clinical pregnancies among recipients.

Ultrasonographically diagnosed dermoid cysts do not influence ovarian stimulation response in an in vitro fertilization cycle.

To determine if patients with a DC respond similarly to ovarian stimulation when compared to patients without a DC. Infertility patients with a DC that underwent IVF between January 2009 and December 2016 were included. A cystic mass with mixed echogenicity, internal echoes similar to thick bands, fatty-fluid level, or an echogenic tubercle with acoustic shadow (Rokitansky nodule) within two years of the cycle characterized the diagnosis. The z-score compared the standard deviations (SDs) in patients with/without a DC and were compared to a nomogram (expected oocytes minus oocytes obtained divided by the SD), adjusted for age and number of oocytes retrieved, built utilizing cycles from noninfertile female patients. Thirty-nine patients with DC and 7839 patients without DC were identified. The mean number of oocytes (8.6 ± 5.8 vs. 8.5 ± 7.7, p = .43) and MIIs (6.7 ± 4.7 vs. 7.0 ± 6.7, p = .74) retrieved were similar. When cycles with and without a DC were compared to the nomogram (z-score of 0), cycles with a DC presented a z-score for ovarian response of 0.1921 SDs from the mean, and patients without DC presented a z-score of -0.2065 SDs from the mean (similar and less than -1.0). After building a population 'normal' response as a template, patients with and without a DC responded similar to COS.

Ovarian stimulation for preimplantation genetic testing.

A narrative review of the management of controlled ovarian stimulation in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing is presented. An electronic search was performed to identify research publications that addressed ovarian stimulation and preimplantation genetic testing published until December 2017. Studies were classified in decreasing categories: randomized controlled trials, prospective controlled trials, prospective non-controlled trials, retrospective studies and experimental studies. The aim of controlled ovarian stimulation has shifted from obtaining embryos available for transfer to yielding the maximum embryos available for biopsy to increase the odds of achieving one euploid embryo available for transfer, without the distress of inducing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or inadequate endometrium receptivity as vitrification and deferred embryo transfer usually will be planned. The present narrative review summarizes all treatment-related variables as well as stimulation strategies after controlled ovarian stimulation that could help patients undergoing an in vitro fertilization cycle coupled with preimplantation genetic testing, including the number of oocytes needed to achieve one healthy live birth, oral contraceptive pill usage, the role of mild ovarian stimulation or random-start stimulation, the stimulation protocol and type of gonadotropin of choice, the novel progesterone protocols, agonist or dual trigger as a final oocyte maturation trigger, the accumulation of oocytes/embryos and the optimal interval before proceeding with a subsequent controlled ovarian stimulation or the optimal medication to link stimulation cycles. The discussion is being presented according to how questions are posed in clinical practice. The aim of ovarian stimulation has shifted from obtaining embryos available for transfer to yielding the maximum embryos available for biopsy to increase the odds of achieving one euploid embryo available for transfer.

Linking back-to-back stimulation cycles with oral contraceptives or progestins in women undergoing embryo accumulation for preimplantation genetic testing, a retrospective study.

This retrospective study was carried out to determine which strategy is associated with improved outcomes in two back-to-back cycles when undergoing embryo accumulation. Eighty patients with two stimulation cycles performed with <45 days between retrievals between Jan'16-Mar'17 were included. Patients were segregated according to the strategy used to link stimulations: spontaneous menses (SM), vaginal micronized progesterone (VMP) or oral contraceptive pills (OCP). Main outcome measure was oocytes retrieved. The oocytes retrieved difference between cycles was -0.9 in SM, -1.5 in VMP and +0.4 in OCPs. Although not statistically significant, more oocytes retrieved were observed in the 2ndcycle when OCPs were used (9.0 ± 3.7 vs. 9.4 ± 4.1)? whereas fewer oocytes retrieved were observed when SM (9.4 ± 3.9 vs. 8.5 ± .0) or VMP (9.8 ± 5.7 vs. 8.2 ± 4.4) were used. After adjusting for age, gonadotropins and stimulation days (2nd cycle) and treatment group in an ANCOVA model, no treatment was associated with a higher average number of oocytes retrieved (power: 14.9%) or a higher difference of oocytes retrieved (power: 22.3%). Although no statistical significance was reached, OCPs were observed to achieve higher average and positive difference of oocytes retrieved in the 2nd cycle.

Hatching status before embryo transfer is not correlated with implantation rate in chromosomally screened blastocysts.

STUDY QUESTION: Do the reproductive outcomes from the transfer of fully hatched (FH) blastocysts differ from those of not fully hatched (NFH) blastocysts? SUMMARY ANSWER: Biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR), implantation rate (IR), live birth rate (LBR) and early pregnancy loss (EPL) rate are similar in FH and NFH single euploid blastocyst embryo transfers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The use of extended culture and PGS often leads to transfer of an embryo that is well developed and frequently FH from the zona pellucida. Without the protection of the zona, an FH embryo could be vulnerable to trauma during the transfer procedure. To date, no other study has evaluated the reproductive competence of an FH blastocyst transfer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The retrospective study included 808 patients who underwent 808 cycles performed between September 2013 and July 2015 at a private academic IVF center. Of these, 436 cycles entailed transfer of a NFH blastocyst (n = 123 fresh transfer, n = 313 frozen/thawed embryo transfer (FET)) and 372 cycles entailed transfer of an FH blastocyst (n = 132 fresh, 240 FET). Fresh and FET cycles and associated clinical outcomes were considered separately. LBR was defined as the delivery of a live infant after 24 weeks of gestation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD: Trophectoderm biopsies were performed on Day 5 (d5) or 6 (d6) for embryos meeting morphology eligibility criteria (set at ≥3BC). Morphologic grading was determined using a modified Gardner-Schoolcraft scale prior to transfer. A single euploid embryo was selected for transfer per cycle on either the morning of d6, for fresh transfers or 5 days after progesterone supplementation for patients with transfer in an FET cycle. Embryos were classified as NFH (expansion Grade 3, 4 or 5) or FH (expansion Grade 6) cohorts. The main outcome measure was IR. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the fresh transfer group, IR was similar between NFH and FH cycles (53.7% versus 55.3%, P = 0.99, odds ratio (OR) 0.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.6-1.5). Secondary outcomes were also statistically similar between groups: BPR (65.9% versus 66.7%, OR 1.0; 95% CI: 0.6-1.6), LBR (43.1% versus 47.7%, P = 0.45, OR 1.2; 95% CI: 0.7-1.9) and EPL rate (22.8% versus 18.2%, OR 1.3; 95% CI: 0.7-2.4). After adjusting for age, BMI, endometrial thickness at the LH surge and oocytes retrieved in a logistic regression (LR) model, the hatching status remained not associated with IR (P > 0.05). In the FET cycles, IR was similar between NFH and FH cycles (62.6% versus 61.7%, OR 1.0; 95% CI: 0.7-1.5). Secondary outcomes were similar between groups: BPR (74.1% versus 72.9%, respectively, OR 1.1; 95% CI: 0.7-1.6), LBR (55.0% versus 50.0%, OR 0.8; 95% CI: 0.6-1.1) and EPL rate (18.9% versus 22.9%, respectively, OR 0.8; 95% CI: 0.5-1.2). After adjusting for age, BMI, endometrial thickness at the LH surge and oocytes retrieved in an LR model, the hatching status was not shown to be associated with implantation (P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations include the retrospective design and data from a single institution. Additionally, the study was limited to patients that developed high-quality blastocysts suitable for biopsy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results suggest that FH embryos are not more fragile or less likely to implant when compared to NFH counterparts. We found no evidence of altered IR or other clinical outcomes in the transfer of FH euploid embryos. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: JG is funded by MSTP grant T32 GM007280 (NIH). No additional funding was received. There are no conflicts of interest to declare..

Reproductive outcome is optimized by genomic embryo screening, vitrification, and subsequent transfer into a prepared synchronous endometrium.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to compare implantation and live birth rates (LBR) between fresh euploid embryo transfers versus cryo-all cycles with a subsequent embryo transfer into a prepared endometrium. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study. Patients who underwent an IVF cycle with PGS with trophectoderm biopsy from January 2011 to July 2015 were included. Patients were divided into three groups: "Fresh Only," "Frozen Embryo Transfer ('FET) Only," and "Fresh ET then FET." For "Fresh Only" group (n = 345), PGS results were received within 24 h. For "FET Only" group (n = 514), results were expected after 24 h, and embryos were cryopreserved after biopsy; only FET was performed in this group (no fresh transfer). For "FET with a previous fresh ET" (n = 139) group, patients underwent a fresh ET with a subsequent FET, in which the same cohort of embryos was utilized. The main outcome measures were pregnancy rate (PR), clinical PR, implantation rate (IR), LBR, and early pregnancy loss rate. RESULTS: IRs were statistically higher in the "FET Only" group when compared to the "Fresh Only" group (59.5 vs. 50.6%, p < 0.01) and the "FET with a previous fresh ET" (59.5 vs. 50.6%, p < 0.05). LBR was statistically significant in the "FET Only" group when compared to the "Fresh Only" group (57.6 vs. 46.5 %, p < 0.005) but not when compared to "FET with a previous fresh ET" group (57.6 vs. 47.7%, p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests euploid embryos to be more likely to implant and achieve a LBR in a synthetic FET cycle than in a fresh cycle.

Comparision of Letrozole with Timed Intercourse Versus Clomiphene Citrate with Intrauterine Insemination in Patients with Unexplained Infertility.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of patients with unexplained infertility who underwent letrozole (LET)- stimulated controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with timed sexual intercourse (IC) as compared to patients treated with clomiphene citrate (CC) and intrauterine insemination (IUI). STUDY DESIGN: A non- randomized, retrospective study where unexplained in- fertility patients (n=7,764). underwent a COS cycle with both LET and timed IC or with CC and IUI from January 2010-June 2014. One group consisted of patients who completed a COS cycle with LET and were instructed to have sexual IC. The other included patients were treated with CC and underwent IUI. Pregnancy rates (PRs) were compared between groups. RESULTS: No statistical difference was observed in each group's age or serum follicule-stimulating hor- mone levels. A statistical significance in LET versus CC-stimulated groups was observed for mean endome- trial thickness (8.3 ± 1.7 vs. 7.9 ± 1.8 mm) and follicular response (2.0 ± 1.0 vs. 2.3 ± 1.3), respectively. Clinical PRs after timed IC were significantly higher in the LET versus CC-stimulated group (15.0% vs 11.8%). Clinical PRs after timed IUI were also significantly higher in the LET versus CC-stimulated group (12.3% vs. 11.5%). Moreover, clinical PRs in LET with IC were significant- ly higher than CC with IUI (15.0% vs. 11.5%). CONCLUSION: Unexplained infertility patients who underwent LET stimulation with IC werefound to have better pregnancy out- comes as compared to those who underwent timed IC.or IUI with CC stimulation.

Embryo selection versus natural selection: how do outcomes of comprehensive chromosome screening of blastocysts compare with the analysis of products of conception from early pregnancy loss (dilation and curettage) among an assisted reproductive technology population?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of numerical chromosomal abnormalities (NCAs) reported after preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) analysis compared with that reported after cytogenetic analysis of products of conception after spontaneous abortion. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Private academic in vitro fertilization center. PATIENT(S): Cytogenetic reports of patients who underwent an IVF cycle with PGS of at least one biopsied embryo were compared with cytogenetic analysis reported from patients who had dilation and curettage (D&C) for the treatment of a spontaneous abortion after assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Frequencies for each numerical chromosomal abnormality from both groups were compared. RESULT(S): A total of 1,069 NCAs were reported after PGS (trisomy 54.3%, monosomy 45.7%, no polyploidies), resulting in a trisomy/monosomy ratio of 0.82. A total of 447 NCAs was reported after D&C (trisomy 83%, polyploidy 10.7%, monosomy 6.3%). The aneuploidies most frequently identified were similar in both groups and included 15, 16, 18, 21, and 22. Monosomies (n = 28, 6.3%) were rarely observed in the group that underwent D&C after ART. CONCLUSION(S): This review provides an analysis of the most commonly identified NCAs after PGS and in first-trimester D&C samples in an infertile population utilizing ART. Although monosomies comprised >50% of all cytogenetic anomalies identified after PGS, there were very few identified in the post-D&C samples. This suggests that although monosomies occur frequently in the IVF population, they commonly do not implant. Despite this difference, this study demonstrated that the specific NCAs observed after PGS analysis and D&C were comparable.

Endometrial pattern, but not endometrial thickness, affects implantation rates in euploid embryo transfers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship of endometrial thickness (EnT) and endometrial pattern (EnP) to euploid embryo transfer (ET) outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Private academic clinic. PATIENT(S): Patients (n = 277; age 36.1 ± 4.0 years) whose embryos (n = 476) underwent aneuploidy screening with fresh (n = 176) or frozen (n = 180) ET from July 2010 to March 2014. INTERVENTION(S): The EnT and EnP were measured on trigger day and at ET. Patients were stratified by age and cycle type (fresh or frozen). Cycle data were combined at trigger day, but separated at ET day. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Outcome measures were implantation rate, pregnancy rate, and clinical pregnancy rate. Analysis was conducted using χ(2) analysis and Fisher's exact test. RESULT(S): A total of 234 gestational sacs, 251 pregnancies, and 202 clinical pregnancies resulted from 356 cycles. The EnT (9.6 ± 1.8 mm; range: 5-15 mm) at trigger day (n = 241 cycles), as a continuous or categorical variable (≤8 vs. >8 mm), was not associated with implantation rate, pregnancy rate, or clinical pregnancy rate. The EnT at day of fresh ET (9.7 ± 2.2 mm; range: 4.4-17.9 mm) (n = 176 cycles) or frozen ET (9.1 ± 2.1 mm; range: 4.2-17.7 mm) (n = 180 cycles) was not associated with implantation rate, pregnancy rate, or clinical pregnancy rate. Type 3 EnP at trigger day was associated with increased serum progesterone at trigger and a decreased implantation rate, compared with type 2 EnP. The EnP at fresh or frozen ET was not associated with implantation rate, pregnancy rate, or clinical pregnancy rate. CONCLUSION(S): Within the study population, EnT was not significantly associated with clinical outcomes of euploid ETs. A type 3 EnP at trigger day suggests a prematurely closed window of implantation.

Endometriosis and IVF: are agonists really better? Analysis of 1180 cycles with the propensity score matching.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of patients with confirmed endometriosis undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF)-embryo transfer (ET) treated with either gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHant) using the propensity score (PS) matching. DESIGN: Observational, retrospective analysis from January 2000 to December 2010. SETTING: Private tertiary fertility clinic. PATIENT(S): Patients with endometriosis confirmed by ultrasound or surgery (American Fertility Society; AFS grades I-IV) that underwent an IVF-ET, stimulated with standard controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and GnRHa or GnRHant. INTERVENTION(S): A PS was assigned to all patients, which calculates the conditional probability of receiving a certain treatment; a higher PS (1) meant a higher probability of receiving treatment with GnRHa, and a lower PS (0) meant a higher probability of receiving GnRHant. The PS was calculated with a logistic regression model adjusted specifically for age, follicle stimulating hormone, antral follicle count and previous IVF cycles. All patients were divided into three groups according to their PS. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): pregnancy rate (PR) per cycle. RESULTS: 1180 patients were analyzed. Raw PR per cycle was 41.8% and 23.4%, and PR per ET was 44.3 and 27%, respectively. PR per cycle: 41.9 versus 30% in group A; in group B, 39.7% versus 36.4% and in group C, 15.4% versus 18.9%. The overall odds ratio for PR adjusted by PS was 1.10 [0.58-2.19]. CONCLUSIONS: After matching patients by PS, PR after COH with either GnRHa or GnRHant may be equally effective.