Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar;10(1):35-42.

Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders

Shamim Pilehvari  1 , Ensieh ShahrokhTehraninejad  1 , Batool Hosseinrashidi  1 , Fatemeh Keikhah  1 , Fedyeh Haghollahi  1 , Elham Aziminekoo  1
Affiliations

Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders

Shamim Pilehvari et al. J Family Reprod Health. 2016 Mar.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the pregnancy outcomes achieved by in vitro fertilization (IVF) between minimal stimulation and conventional antagonist protocols in poor ovarian responders (PORs).

Materials and methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 77 PORs undergoing IVF were selected and divided into two groups. First group was the minimal stimulation group (n = 42) receiving 100 mg/day clomiphene citrate on day 2of the cycle for 5 day that was followed by150IU/day human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) on day 5 of the cycle. Second group was the conventional group (n = 35) receiving at least 300 IU/daygonadotropin on day 2 of the cycle. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol was applied for both groups according to flexible protocol. Number of retrieved oocytes and chemical pregnancy rate were the main outcomes.

Results: There was no difference in number ofretrieved oocyte and pregnancy rate (2.79 ± 1.96 vs. 2.20 ± 1.71 and 5.6% vs. 4.1%; p > 0.05) between both groups. The gonadotropin dose used in the minimal stimulation group was lower than conventional group (1046 ± 596 vs. 2806 ± 583).

Conclusion: Minimal stimulation protocol with lower gonadotropin used is likely to be considered as a patient- friendly and cost-effective substitute for PORs.

Keywords: Conventional Antagonist Protocol; In Vitro Fertilization; Minimal Stimulation Protocol; Poor Ovarian Responders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Garcia J, Jones GS, Acosta AA, Wright G Jr. Human menopausal gonadotropin/human chorionic gonadotropin follicular maturation for oocyte aspiration: phase II, 1981. Fertility and sterility. 1983;39:174–9. - PubMed
    1. Gardner , Colin M Howles, Zeev . Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Techniques Fourth Edition: Volume 2: Clinical Perspective. CRC press; 2012.
    1. Lazer T, Dar S, Shlush E, Al Kudmani BS, Quach K, Sojecki A, et al. Comparison of IVF Outcomes between Minimal Stimulation and High-Dose Stimulation for Patients with Poor Ovarian Reserve. Int J Reprod Med. 2014;2014:581451. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response'to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Human Reproduction. 2011;26:1616–24. - PubMed
    1. Tarlatzis BC, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Human Reproduction Update. 2003;9:61–76. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources