medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial del Hospital Angeles Health System

2019, Número S1

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

Acta Med 2019; 17 (S1)


Individualización de estimulación ovárica controlada en fertilización in vitro

Benítez CKL, Kably AA

Idioma: Español
Referencias bibliográficas: 23
Paginas: 16-21
Archivo PDF: 159.20 Kb.


RESUMEN

El régimen de estimulación ovárica ideal debe tener tasas de cancelación bajas, minimizar costos, tener riesgos y efectos secundarios bajos y maximizar las tasas de embarazos únicos. Se han descrito numerosos regímenes, que van desde la ausencia de estimulación (ciclos naturales) hasta la estimulación mínima (citrato de clomifeno) o la estimulación leve hasta agresiva (dosis altas de gonadotropopinas exógenas). La evidencia apoya un enfoque individualizado para la selección de un esquema de estimulación ovárica, considerando combinaciones de pruebas de reserva ovárica (niveles de hormona foliculoestimulante [FSH], hormona antimulleriana y conteo folicular antral), edad de la paciente, índice de masa corporal (IMC), el tratamiento de reproducción asistida indicado (coito programado, inseminación intrauterina o fertilización in vitro) y la respuesta a cualquier estimulación ovárica previa, para adaptar la dosis de gonadotropina exógena.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Broekmans FJ, Verweij PJ, Eijkemans MJ, Mannaerts BM, Witjes H. Prognostic models for high and low ovarian responses in controlled ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29 (8): 1688-1697.

  2. Ghumman S. Principles and practice of controlled ovarian stimulation in ART. New Delhi, India. Springer, 2015.

  3. Steiner AZ, Jukic AM. Impact of female age and nulligravidity on fecundity in an older reproductive age cohort. Fertil Steril. 2016; 105 (6): 1585-1588.

  4. Rothman KJ, Wise LA, Sørensen HT, Riis AH, Mikkelsen EM, Hatch EE. Volitional determinants and age-related decline in fecundability: a general population prospective cohort study in Denmark. Fertil Steril. 2013; 99: 1958-1964.

  5. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103 (3): e9-e17.

  6. Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009; 91 (3): 705-714.

  7. Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti Mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014; 20 (3): 370-385.

  8. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Diagnostic evaluation of the infertile female: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103 (6): e44-50.

  9. Douchi T, Kuwahata R, Yamamoto S, Oki T, Yamasaki H, Nagata Y. Relationship of upper body obesity to menstrual disorders. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002; 81 8 (2): 147-150.

  10. Sampo AV, Palena C, Ganzer L, Maccari V, Estofán G, Hernández M. The adverse effect of overweight in assisted reproduction treatment outcomes. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017; 21 (3): 212-216.

  11. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Obesity and reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015; 104 (5): 1116-1126.

  12. Imani B, Eijkemans MJ, te Velde ER, Habbema JD, Fauser BC. A nomogram to predict the probability of live birth after clomiphene citrate induction of ovulation in normogonadotropic oligoamenorrheic infertility. Fertil Steril. 2002; 77 (1): 91-97.

  13. Souter I, Baltagi LM, Kuleta D, Meeker JD, Petrozza JC. Women, weight, and fertility: the effect of body mass index on the outcome of superovulatory/intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95 (3): 1042-1047.

  14. Moragianni VA, Jones SM, Ryley DA. The effect of body mass index on the outcomes of first assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012; 98 (1): 102-108.

  15. Macklon NS, Stouffer RL, Giudice LC, Fauser BC. The science behind 25 years of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Endocr Rev. 2006; 27 (2): 170-207.

  16. Xiao JS, Su CM, Zeng XT. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in supposed normal ovarian re- sponders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014; 9 (9): e106854.

  17. Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Ayeleke RO, Brown J, Lam WS, Broekmans FJ. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; (4): CD001750.

  18. Niederberger C, Pellicer A, Cohen J, Gardner DK, Palermo GD, O’Neill CL et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril. 2018; 110 (2): 185-324.

  19. Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016; 31 (2): 370-376.

  20. Steward RG, Lan L, Shah AA, Yeh JS, Price TM, Goldfarb JM et al. Ooycte number as predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101 (4): 967-973.

  21. Thakre N, Homburg R. A review of IVF in PCOS patients at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab. 2019; 1-5. https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iere20.

  22. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L et al. ESHRE Consensus of the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26 (7): 1616-1624.

  23. Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis B, Criesinger G. Addition of growth hormone to gonadotrophins in ovarian stimulation of poor responders treated by in-vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009; 15 (6): 613-622.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com