ABSTRACT
Resumen OBJETIVO: Evaluar la eficacia de la hormona antimülleriana en la predicción de la respuesta ovárica, tasa de embarazo y nacido vivo. MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS: Estudio retrospectivo, analítico y observacional efectuado para evaluar los ciclos de estimulación ovárica de pacientes atendidas entre el 1 de enero de 2010 y el 30 de junio de 2017 en el Centro de Reproducción Hisparep. Criterios de inclusión: límites de edad 20 y 44 años y tener ciclos menstruales regulares. Criterios de exclusión: factor masculino alterado, cavidad uterina alterada, trastornos endocrinos, antecedente de daño ovárico. Variables de estudio: concentraciones de hormona antimülleriana, ovocitos recuperados, maduros, fecundados, embriones, tasa de embarazo y nacido vivo. Las variables cuantitativas se analizaron mediante una comparación de medias con t de Student, las variables porcentuales mediante comparación de percentiles. RESULTADOS: Se evaluaron 223 ciclos, divididos en grupos según diferentes puntos de corte. En cualquier punto de corte la hormona antimülleriana predice mayor recuperación de ovocitos maduros y fecundados: 1.25 ng/mL fue el punto de corte más significativo porque predijo mayor obtención de embriones. Se observó relación entre las tasas de embarazo clínico y nacido vivo, aunque su poder predictivo fue débil. Tomar como referencia un punto de corte de 0.5 ng/mL parece predecir bajas probabilidades de nacido vivo. CONCLUSIONES: La hormona antimülleriana fue el mejor marcador de respuesta ovárica; el punto de corte más significativo fue el de 1.25 ng/mL. Hacen falta más estudios para evaluar su eficacia como predictor de bajas tasas de nacido vivo.
Abstract OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of antimülleriana hormone in prediction of the ovarian response, pregnancy rate and live birth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, analytical and observational study, ovarian stimulation cycles were evaluated at the Hisparep Reproduction Center, in a period from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2017, the inclusion criteria were; Age from 20 to 44 years and regular menstrual cycles. The exclusion criteria; altered male factor, altered uterine cavity, endocrine disorders, antecedent of ovarian damage. The study variables; antimüllerian hormone, oocytes recovered, mature, fertilized, embryos, pregnancy rate and live birth. The quantitative variables were analyzed by means of a comparison of means, using the Student's T test, the percentage variables by means of comparison of percentiles. RESULTS: 223 cycles were evaluated, divided into groups using different cut points. It was determined that Antimullerian Hormone predicts a greater recovery of mature and fertilized oocytes using any cut point, we consider that 1.25 ng / mL was the most significant cutoff point, since it predicts higher embryo obtaining, relationship was observed in pregnancy rates clinical and live birth, although its predictive power is weak, however, using a cutoff of 0.5 ng / mL seems to predict low odds of live birth CONCLUSIONS: Antimullerian hormone is the best marker of ovarian response, we consider that 1.25 ng /mL is the most significant cut-off point, more studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy as a predictor of low rates of live birth.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: Could metaphase 1 (M1) and 2 (M2) stages oocytes from in vitro maturation (IVM) cycles and controlled-ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) cycles be frozen at the same time without any adverse effect of vitrification on further survival (SR) and maturation rates (MR)? MATERIALS & METHODS: M1 from cancer patients were prospectively included in IVM/COH groups, and in study or control subgroups if they were vitrified or not. In each study subgroup, SR were compared with that of M2 oocytes vitrified/warmed from egg donors. MR were compared with those of fresh-M1 oocytes from control IVM/COH subgroups. RESULTS: SR were not different between groups. MR compared respectively between survived- and fresh-M1 oocytes were similar when resulting from COH (85.2 vs 81.1%) but significantly lower after IVM (39.1 vs 73.3%). CONCLUSION: Simultaneous freezing of M1/M2 oocytes could be applied to COH but not to IVM during the course of fertility preservation.
Subject(s)
Fertility Preservation , Metaphase , Oocytes/cytology , Oocytes/physiology , Adult , Case-Control Studies , Cell Differentiation , Cells, Cultured , Cryopreservation/methods , Female , Humans , In Vitro Techniques , Neoplasms , Ovulation Induction , VitrificationABSTRACT
Despite the fact that both gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and antagonist protocol are effective in suppressing the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges through reversibly blocking the secretion of pituitary gonadotropins, the exact impact of these two distinctive protocols on the clinical setting of patients for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment, however, remained controversial. We thus in the present report conducted a retrospective study to compare the impact of GnRH agonist and antagonist protocol on the same patients during controlled ovarian stimulation cycles. A total of 81 patients undergoing 105 agonist and 88 antagonist protocol were analyzed. We failed to detect a significant difference between two protocols for the difference in duration of ovarian stimulation, number of recombinant FSH (Gonal-F) ampoules used, number of oocytes retrieved, serum levels for estradiol (E2) and progestone (P), thickness of endometrium, and the zygote- and blastocyst-development rate. It is seemly that high quality embryo rate was higher in the antagonist protocol, but the data did not reach a statistical significance. Nevertheless, Implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate were significantly higher in the antagonist protocol (10.64% and 30.26%, respectively) than that of the agonist protocol (5.26% and 15.82%, respectively). Our data also suggest that the GnRH antagonist protocol is likely to have the advantage for improving the outcome of pregnancy in those patients with a history of multiple failures for the IVF-ET treatment.
