Vaginismus in Assisted Reproductive Technology Centers: an invisible population in need of care.

OBJECTIVE: Genital and sexual pain is still neglected. Consequences may be dramatic, since infertility and sexual dysfunction may be reciprocally linked. This is the first study to focus on the identification of cases of vaginismus in the ART scenario and on the introduction of intra-cycle interventions as part of a comprehensive, integrated and patient-centered perspective. METHODS: This observational prospective study looked into 425 IVF/ICSI cycles and 226 frozen embryo transfers carried out from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016, and found seven cases of vaginismus. Within a six-month period, a questionnaire placed on SurveyMonkey was sent twice to 228 ART centers in Latin America. The purpose was to learn how often cases of vaginismus were found in ART centers and the perceptions around the presence of this condition. RESULTS: The few centers that took the time to answer the questionnaire (24/10.5%) stated that the number of cases in which they had trouble performing control ultrasound examination or needed to perform transfers with patients under sedation was not significant. Although 81% agreed that the incidence of these conditions is low, no references were made to cases of vaginismus, dyspareunia or sexual dysfunction. Our multidisciplinary team found seven cases of vaginismus, involving women with higher education degrees with a mean age of 37.8 years and married for a mean of four years. Although two reported they were able to tolerate intercourse, all reported undergoing treatments such as using vaginal dilators (3), psychotherapy (4) and psychiatric care (1). The care provided by the staff was designed to mitigate patient suffering. CONCLUSION: Gentle care and sensitive listening should be integral components in the work of multidisciplinary teams to identify women with vaginismus and offer couples better quality treatment.

High Progesterone levels in the beginning of ICSI antagonist cycles and clinical pregnancy: still a concern?

OBJECTIVE: In controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) using antagonist cycles, an incomplete luteolysis could happen after an inefficient previous luteolysis. Since antagonist cycles are frequent today, this study aims to access the impact of serum progesterone in the beginning and at the end of stimulation, and pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: single-center cohort study, 461 fresh embryo transfers in ICSI antagonist cycles. Serum progesterone levels was measured in the beginning of COH (P4i) and on hCG day (P4f) using threshold values of 1.5ng/mL. Four groups were created: Group 1, P4i and P4f ≤ 1.5; Group 2, P4i ≤ 1.5 and P4f > 1.5; Group 3, P4i > 1.5 and P4f ≤ 1.5 and Group 4, P4i and P4f > 1.5. The clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rates (LBR) were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: The number of cycles per group was: 393, 51, 6 and 11, respectively. Group 1 was considered the expected normal, while group 4 represented the persistence of higher levels. There was no difference in age, basal FSH and Estradiol, days of stimulation endometrium thickness and total amount of gonadotropins between group 1 versus group 4. However, significant differences occurred in embryological and clinical outcomes between these 2 groups. CONCLUSION: The impact of serum progesterone in the beginning of stimulation and pregnancy outcomes is a matter of concern. Basal elevated levels could help identify patients that will repeat it on hCG day, being probably a marker to define a freeze-all strategy to these cycles.

Prediction of metaphase II oocytes according to different serum Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels in antagonist ICSI cycles.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to assess a qualitative aspect of ovarian response in terms of metaphase II oocytes according to different serum Anti-Müllerian hormone levels in antagonist ICSI cycles. A prediction index might contribute to the individualization of care. METHODS: This observational study looked into 287 antagonist ICSI cycles carried out with patients treated in a single center between January of 2012 and January of 2016. Serum AMH and subgroup analyses were performed based on five AMH ranges (≤ 0.3 ng/mL;> 0.3 and ≤ 0.7 ng/mL; > 0.7 and ≤ 1.0 ng/mL; > 1.0 and < 3.0 ng/mL; ≥ 3.0 ng/mL). The variables analyzed included patient age; serum FSH and antral follicle count at the start of the cycle; number of stimulation days and number follicles ≥ 15 mm on hCG day; number of oocytes retrieved and number of metaphase II oocytes. RESULTS: AMH is a better predictor of ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation than AFC or serum FSH, while age is an independent marker. AMH levels ≤0.70 (patients with poor prognosis) were observed in 140 patients (48.7%). Patients within this AMH level range accounted for 92% of the 24 failed cycles (cancelled cycles, no oocytes or immature oocytes retrieved). CONCLUSION: AMH predicts the quality of ovarian response to stimulation, regardless of patient age. Women with AMH levels ≥1.0 and ≤3.0 ng/mL are probably normal responders with good prognosis. Clinical application relies on the examination of the data from each individual center and on the establishment of correlations between AMH levels and ovarian response in the form of metaphase II oocytes.