Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 18/10/2021
Abstract Views: 265
Views PDF: 200
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v506i1.1215
Issue
Vol. 506 No. 1 (2021)
Section
Các bài báo
How to Cite
Hồng Hạnh, N. ., & Sỹ Hùng, H. (2021). COMPARE RESULT OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION BETWEEN NATURE CYCLE AND MILD STIMULATION IN PATIENTS WITH POOR RESPONDER. Vietnam Medical Journal, 506(1). https://doi.org/10.51298/vmj.v506i1.1215

COMPARE RESULT OF IN VITRO FERTILIZATION BETWEEN NATURE CYCLE AND MILD STIMULATION IN PATIENTS WITH POOR RESPONDER

Nguyễn Hồng Hạnh1,, Hồ Sỹ Hùng2
1 Hong Ngoc General Hospital
2 Hanoi Medical University

Main Article Content

Abstract

Poor responder is always a challenge in IVF. Mild stimulation and natural cycle are 2 regimens used for patients with poor responder in recent time. Objectives: To evaluate the results of 2 protocols in IVF for patients with poor responder. Subjects: 96 cycles (49 cycles with natural cycle, 47 cycles with mild stimulation) at the Hong Ngoc IVF Center from October 2019 to May 2021. Methods: prospective comparative study.  Results: In the group using natural cycle: 48,9% of cycles obtained oocytes, 38,8% of cycles with 2PN oocytes, 24,5% of cycles with transferred embryos. Implantation rate 25%, fertilization rate 79,2%, clinical pregnancy rate 6,1%. In the group using mild stimulation: 76.6% cycles obtained oocytes, 63.8% cycles 2PN oocytes, 57.4% cycles with transferred embryos. Implantation rate 18.9%, fertilization rate 67.1%, clinical pregnancy rate 14.9%. Conclusion: The ability to obtain oocytes, the number of obtained embryos in the group using mild stimulation were higher than those in the group using natural cycle. However, the fertilization rate, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate did not differ between the two protocols and did not differ from conventional IVF.

Article Details

Keywords

natural cycle, mild stimulation, poor responder, ivf

References

1. Ferraretti A.P, La Marca. A, Fauser.B.C.J.M, et al. (2011). ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria”. Human Reproduction. 26(7):pp.1616-1624.
2. Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, Estevas SC, et al (2016). A new more detailed stratification of low resonders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril; 105(6): 1452-3.
3. Trương Văn Tuyên (2014), Nghiên cứu kết quả thụ tinh trong ống nghiệm trên bệnh nhân đáp ứng kém với kích thích buồng trứng bằng phác đồ Antagonist tại Bệnh viện phụ sản Trung Ương, Luận văn thạc sỹ Y học, Đại học Y Hà Nội, Hà Nội.
4. Lê Long Hồ (2016). Tỷ lệ thai diễn tiến cộng dồn khi điều trị thụ tinh trong ống nghiệm của các bệnh nhân tiên lượng thấp theo phân loại POSEIDON. Tạp chí y học sinh sản 12, 72-75.
5. Haiquing Tian, Ximin Mao, Nam Su, Xiaolin La (2021). The correlation between AMH and number of embryos in POSEIDON groups: a retrospective cohort study. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 42(4), pp.842-848.
6. M. B. Palhares, R. A. Ferriani, W. P. Martins, P. A. Navarro (2015). A formula combining age, AMH, AFC and FSH is more accurate than individual markers in predicting poor response to cotrolled ovarian stimulation in good prognosis patients. Fertility and Sterility 104(3), p.654.
7. Panagiotis Drakapoulus, Alessia Romito, Christophe Blockeel (2019). Modified natural cycle IVF versus conventional stimulation in advanced-age Bologna poor responders. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 39(4), pp.698-703.
8. Zhen X.M., Quiao J., Li R., Wang L.N., Liu P. (2008). The clinical analysis of poor ovarian response in in-vitro-fertilization embryo-transfer among Chinese couples. J Assist Reprod Genet, 25(1), pp.17-22.