Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:50:28.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of repeated controlled ovarian stimulation cycles on the gamete and embryo development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 August 2019

L.T. Paul ,
O. Atilan  and
P. Tulay Open the ORCID record for P. Tulay [Opens in a new window]
L.T. Paul
Affiliation:
Near East University, Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Medical Biology and Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus
O. Atilan
Affiliation:
Near East University, Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Medical Biology and Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus
P. Tulay*
Affiliation:
Near East University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Genetics, Nicosia, Cyprus Near East University, Research Centre of Experimental Health Sciences, Nicosia, Cyprus
*
Address for correspondence: Pinar Tulay. Near East University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Genetics, Near East University, Research Centre of Experimental Health Sciences (DESAM), Nicosia, Cyprus, Near East Boulevard, Nicosia North, Cyprus. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The aim of this study was to investigate if there is an adverse effect of multiple controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) on the maturity of oocytes (MI and MII), fertilization rate, embryo developmental qualities and clinical pregnancy rates in donation cycles. In total, 65 patients undergoing oocyte donation cycles multiple times were included in this study. Patients were grouped as group A that consisted of donors with ≤2 stimulation cycles while B consisted of donors with ≥3 stimulation cycles; and group C included donors who had ≤15 oocytes, while group D had donors with ≥16 oocytes. Numbers of oocytes obtained, MI and MII oocytes, fertilization, embryo quality and clinical pregnancy outcomes were compared. Significant statistical differences were observed in total number of oocytes obtained, maturity of oocytes (MI and MII), fertilization rate, embryo qualities and clinical pregnancy outcomes of donors in groups A–D. Donors with ≤2 ovarian stimulation cycles had lower numbers of immature oocytes than donors with three or more stimulation cycles. However, donors with ≥3 stimulation cycles had higher numbers of mature oocytes, zygotes, with better day 3 embryo qualities and higher clinical pregnancy rates than donors with ≤2 stimulation cycles. Repeated COS does not seem to have any adverse effect on ovarian response to higher dose of artificial gonadotropin, as quality of oocytes collected and their embryological developmental potential were not affected by the number of successive stimulation cycles. The effect of multiple COS on the health of the oocyte donor needs to be assessed for future purpose.

Keywords

COSEmbryo qualityMultiple IVF cyclesOocyte quality
Type
Research Article
Information
Zygote , Volume 27 , Issue 5 , October 2019 , pp. 347 - 349
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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.)

References

ALPHA Scientists In Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group Embryology (2011) Istanbul Consensus Workshop on Embryo Assessment: Proceedings of an Expert Meeting. Reprod Biomed Online 22, 632–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyle, CE, Harper, JC and Davies, MC (2016) Oocyte cryopreservation: where are we now? Hum Reprod Update 22, 440–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caligara, C, Navarro, J, Vargas, G, Simón, C, Pellicer, A and Remohí, J (2001) The effect of repeated controlled ovarian stimulation in donors. Hum Reprod 16, 2320–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donnez, J and Dolmans, MM (2013) Fertility preservation in women. Nat Rev Endocrinol 9, 735–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eppsteiner, EE, Sparks, AE, Liu, D and Van Voorhis, BJ (2014) Change in oocyte yield in repeated in vitro fertilization cycles: effect of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 101, 399–402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gougeon, A (1986) Dynamics of follicular growth in the human: a model from preliminary results. Hum Reprod 1, 81–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kavic, SM and Sauer, MV (2001) Oocyte donation treats infertility in survivors of malignancies: ten-year experience. J Assist Reprod Genet 18, 181–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Kawwass, JF, Monsour, M, Crawford, S, Kissin, DM, Session, DR, Kulkarni, AD and Jamieson, DJ (2013) Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States 2000–2010. J Am Med Assoc 310, 2426–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Ni, H, He, S, Li, H, Chen, D, Hua, R, Chen, S and Quan, S (2015) Ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in hyper-responders during repeated in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. J South Med Univ 35, 912–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, A, Tilling, K, Nelson, SM and Lawlor, DA (2015) Live-birth rate associated with repeat in vitro fertilisation treatment cycles. J Am Med Assoc 314, 2654–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Paul et al. supplementary material

Tables S1-S4

Download Paul et al. supplementary material(File)
File 17.3 KB