Comparison of intraovarian instillation of platelet-rich plasma versus stem-cells for ovarian rejuvenation

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the role of intra-ovarian Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) versus marrow derived Stem-Cells (SC) instillation for improvement in ovarian-reserve (AFC,AMH, FSH). Design: A prospective comparative study. Method: 72 infertile females (20-39 years) with poor ovarian reserve (AMH <1.2 ng/ml;AFC < 5) (POSEIDON criterion) were enrolled for study between January 2020 -December 2021. The two comparative groups underwent either intra-ovarian PRP instillation (n = 42) or autologous SC transplantation (n = 30). After the two groups were matched (PRP vs. SC) for baseline characteristics (Age, AMH, AFC, FSH, Estradiol), 30 subjects in each group were compared for change in serum FSH/AMH/Estradiol levels and AFC at 1st month and 3rd month post intervention from the baseline. This was also compared between the two groups using Student t-test. The cost and procedural pain measured using Visual analog scale (VAS) were also compared. Results: After matching for baseline characteristics, significant ∼ 1.8/2 and ∼1.5/1.6fold increase in AFC at 1st/3rd month post intervention (p < 0.001) was observed after PRP instillation and SC transplantation respectively. However, PRP group fared better than SC group at 3rd month post intervention (7.07 vs. 5.60, p = 0.02), while no significant difference existed amongst the two at 1st month of follow up. Levels of Serum FSH, AMH and Estradiol (p > 0.05) did not differ significantly from the baseline at 1st and 3rd month post intervention in both the groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference between the two groups in serum FSH level (7.98 IU/ml vs. 9.62 IU/ml, p = 0.062;8.26 IU/ml vs. 9.50 IU/ml, p = 0.15), AMH level (1.62 ng/ml vs. 1.02 ng/ ml, p = 0.27;1.35 ng/ml vs. 0.95 ng/ml, p = 0.24), Estradiol level (49.12 pg/ml vs. 56.48 pg/ml p = 0.443;54.7 pg/ml vs. 61.12 pg/ml, p = 0.44) at 1st and 3rd month post intervention respectively. PRP is comparatively more cost effective and is associated with lesser pain (32.5 mm vs. 28.13 mm, p = 0.02) then SC group thus showing better compliance and acceptability. Conclusion: Both PRP and SC therapies improves the ovarian reserve markers however, response to PRP is superior to SC. Also, further to note that PRP is minimally invasive and has better compliance and acceptability. The main limitation of this study is small sample size and due to Covid pandemic inability to perform the IVF cycles to show improvement in clinical pregnancies and live births. Therefore, a large randomized trial is required to validate these results.