The Case against Mild Stimulation Protocols

doi:10.1017/9781316477021.008

Chapter 5 - The Case against Mild Stimulation Protocols

from Section 1 - Mild Forms of Ovarian Stimulation

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 April 2022

Carlotta Zacà ,

Francesca Pennetta and

Andrea Borini

Edited by

Mohamed Aboulghar and

Botros Rizk

Show author details

Mohamed Aboulghar: Affiliation:
University of Cairo IVF Centre
Botros Rizk: Affiliation:
University of South Alabama

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The number of retrieved oocytes is one of the major parameters by which the intensity of ovarian stimulation is estimated. While conventional stimulation protocols in in vitro fertilization (IVF) are designed to obtain maximum oocytes yields, they have often been associated with increased risk of complications, increased costs derived from higher gonadotropin dosage, and lower embryo quality. For these reasons, physicians have introduced a milder approach to ovarian stimulation, focusing on a more patient-friendly and safe method, while attempting to improve IVF outcomes. Typically, the strengths of mild stimulation include: reduced mean number of days of stimulation, smaller total amount of gonadotropins, smaller mean number of oocytes retrieved balanced by possibly better embryo quality, decreased treatment discomfort, and reduced risk of complications. However, to date there are still unanswered questions about the possibility that a milder approach to ovarian stimulation is clinically superior to conventional regimens.

Type: Chapter
Information: Ovarian Stimulation , pp. 47 - 54

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316477021.008 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Zegers-Hochschild, F, Adamson, D, Dyer, S, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Hum Reprod 2017;32(9):1786–1801.Google Scholar

Nargund, G, Fauser, BC, Macklon, NS, et al. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2801–2804.Google Scholar

Alper, MM, Fauser, BC. Ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF: is more better than less? Reprod Biomed Online 2017;34(4):345–353.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Siristatidis, C, Salamalekis, G, Dafopoulos, K, et al. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI. In Vivo 2017;31(2):231–237.Google Scholar

Orvieto, R, Vanni, VS, Gleicher, N. The myths surrounding mild stimulation in vitro fertilization (IVF). Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2017;15(1):48.Google Scholar

Verberg, MFG, Eijkemans, MJC, Machlon, NS, et al. The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:5–12.Google Scholar

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Comparison of pregnancy rates for poor responders using IVF with mild ovarian stimulation versus conventional IVF: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2018;109(6):993–999.Google Scholar

Hillier, SG, Afnan, AM, Margara, RA, Winston, RM. Superovulation strategy before in vitro fertilization. Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1985;12(3):687–723.Google Scholar

Sunkara, SK, Rittenberg, V, Raine-Fenning, N, et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1768–1774.Google Scholar

Ji, J, Liu, Y, Tong, XH, et al. The optimum number of oocytes in IVF treatment: an analysis of 2455 cycles in China. Hum Reprod 2013;28(10):2728–2734.Google Scholar

Beckers, NGM, Macklon, NS, Eijkemans, MJC, Fauser, BCJM. Women with regular menstrual cycles and a poor response to ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization exhibit follicular phase characteristics suggestive of ovarian aging. Fertil Steril 2002;78:291–297.Google Scholar

Briggs, R, Kovacs, G, MacLachlan, V, Motteram, C, Baker, HW. Can you ever collect too many oocytes? Hum Reprod 2015;30(1):81–87.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Fauser, BC, Devroey, P, Macklon, NS. Multiple birth resulting from ovarian stimulation for subfertility treatment. Lancet 2005;365:1807–1816.Google Scholar

Macklon, NS, Stouffer, RL, Giudice, LC, Fauser, BC. The science behind 25 years of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Endocr Rev 2006;27:170–207.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Zacà, C, Spadoni, V, Patria, G, et al. How do live birth and cumulative live birth rate in IVF cycles change with the number of oocytes retrieved? EC Gynaecol 2017;20:391–401.Google Scholar

Fauser, BC, Devroey, P, Yen, SS, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation for IVF: appraisal of potential benefits and drawbacks. Hum Reprod 1999;14:2681–2686.Google Scholar

McAvey, B, Zapantis, A, Jindal, SK, Lieman, HJ, Polotsky, AJ. How many eggs are needed to produce an assisted reproductive technology baby: is more always better? Fertil Steril 2011;96:332–335.Google Scholar

Polyzos, NP, Drakopoulos, P, Parra, J, et al. Cumulative live birth rates according to the number of oocytes retrieved after the first ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multicenter multinational analysis including 15,000 women. Fertil Steril 2018;110(4):661–670.Google Scholar

Devesa, M, Tur, R, Rodríguez, I, et al. Cumulative live birth rates and number of oocytes retrieved in women of advanced age. A single centre analysis including 4500 women ≥38 years old. Hum Reprod 2018;33(11):2010–2017.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 2007;22:980–988.Google Scholar

Verpoest, W, Fauser, BC, Papanikolaou, E, et al. Chromosomal aneuploidy in embryos conceived with unstimulated cycle IVF. Hum Reprod 2008;23(10):2369–2371.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Gleicher, N, Kim, A, Weghofer, A, Barad, DH. Lessons from elective in vitro fertilization (IVF) in, principally, non-infertile women. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012;10:48.Google Scholar

Labarta, E, Bosch, E, Alama, P, et al. Moderate ovarian stimulation does not increase the incidence of human embryo chromosomal abnormalities in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:1987–1994.Google Scholar

Rubio, C, Mercader, A, Alamá, P, et al. Prospective cohort study in high responder oocyte donors using two hormonal stimulation protocols: impact on embryo aneuploidy and development. Hum Reprod 2010;25:2290–2297.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Labarta, E, Bosh, E, Mercader, A, et al. A higher ovarian response after stimulation for IVF is related to a higher number of euploid embryos. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:5637923.Google Scholar

Sekhon, L, Shaia, K, Santistevan, A, et al. The cumulative dose of gonadotropins used for controlled ovarian stimulation does not influence the odds of embryonic aneuploidy in patients with normal ovarian response. J Assist Reprod Genet 2017;34(6):749–758.Google Scholar

Roque, M, Haahr, T, Geber, S, Esteves, SC, Humaidan, P. Fresh versus elective frozen embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes. Hum Reprod Update 2019;25:2–14.Google Scholar

Maheshwari, A, McLernon, D, Bhattacharya, S. Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus? Hum Reprod 2015;30(12):2703–2707.Google Scholar

Sunkara, SK, Khalaf, Y, Maheshwari, A, Seed, P, Coomarasamy, A. Association between response to ovarian stimulation and miscarriage following IVF: an analysis of 124 351 IVF pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2014;29(6):1218–1224.Google Scholar

Cai, QF, Wan, F, Huang, R, Zhang, HW. Factors predicting the cumulative outcome of IVF/ICSI treatment: a multivariable analysis of 2450 patients. Hum Reprod 2011;26(9):2532–2540.Google Scholar

Vaughan, DA, Leung, A, Resetkova, N, et al. How many oocytes are optimal to achieve multiple live births with one stimulation cycle? The one-and-done approach. Fertil Steril 2017;107(2):397–404.Google Scholar

Fauser, BC, Nargund, G, Andersen, AN, et al. Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: 10 years later. Hum Reprod 2010;25(11):2678–2684.Google Scholar

Drakopoulos, P, Blockeel, C, Stoop, D, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod 2016;31(2):370–376.Google Scholar

Baker, VL. Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: one perspective from the USA. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013;30(2):197–202.Google Scholar

Delvigne, A. Symposium: update on prediction and management of OHSS. Epidemiology of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19:8–13.Google Scholar

Papanikolaou, EG, Tournaye, H, Verpoest, W, et al. Early and late ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: early pregnancy outcome and profile. Hum Reprod 2005;20:636–641.Google Scholar

Matsaseng, T, Kruger, T, Steyn, W. Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: are we ready to change? A meta-analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2013;76:233–240.Google Scholar

Steward, RG, Lan, L, Shah, AA, et al. Oocyte number as a predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth: an analysis of 256,381 in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2014;101(4):967–973.Google Scholar

Zacà, C, Bazzocchi, A, Pennetta, F, et al. Cumulative live birth rate in freeze-all cycles is comparable to that of a conventional embryo transfer policy at the cleavage stage but superior at the blastocyst stage. Fertil Steril 2018;110(4):703–709.Google Scholar

Devroey, P, Polyzos, NP, Blockeel, C. An OHSS-free clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2593–7.Google Scholar

Wong, KM, van Wely, M, Mol, F, Repping, S, Mastenbroek, S. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfers in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;3:CD011184.Google Scholar