medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2022, Number 02

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2022; 90 (02)

Ovarian response and LBR in patients with altered antral follicular count and anti- Müllerian hormone in assisted reproduction cycles

Fernández del Campo-Audelo M, Barros-Delgadillo JC, Muńoz-Manrique C

Language: Spanish
References: 31
Page: 119-133
PDF size: 193.43 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objectivoe: To evaluate the relationship between antral follicular count and antimüllerian hormone with the number of oocytes retrieved and live birth rate.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective, observational, descriptive and comparative study carried out in patients attended at a tertiary level hospital. Study parameters: IVF-ICSI cycles performed between January 2017 and March 2021. The cycles, for study purposes, were divided into three groups: 1) antral follicular count, 2) antimüllerian hormone and 3) both parameters altered. To evaluate the relationship of the markers with the number of oocytes recovered and the live birth rate, an exploratory statistical analysis was performed. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were compared between the three groups using Kruskal-Wallis and 2 tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A level of less than 0.50 was considered significant; STATA 12 statistical software was used.
Results: Among the three groups analyzed, 222 cycles were included: with antral follicular count, antimüllerian hormone or both altered. Fifty-four (24.3%) were found with a live birth. The number of antral follicles and live birth rate were significantly lower in patients with both markers altered. Patients with altered antimüllerian hormone concentrations had better prognosis (MR 2.3; 95%CI: 1.08-4.93, p ‹ 0.03). FSH dose and number of embryos transferred were the variables that influenced the probability of having a live newborn.
Conclusions: Antimüllerian hormone concentration less than 1.2 ng/mL is related to better ovarian response and higher live birth rate. This higher probability is influenced by the number of gonadotropins used and embryos transferred.


REFERENCES

  1. Moolhuyjsen LME, Visser JA. Anti-Müllerian Hormone and Ovarian Reserve: Update on Assessing Ovarian Function. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2020; 105 (11): 3361-73. https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa513 https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa513

  2. ACOG committee opinion 618 Ovarian Reserve Testing. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000459864.68372.ec

  3. Hansen KR, Hodnett GM, Knowlton N, Craig LB. Correlation of ovarian reserve tests with histologically determined primordial follicle number. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 170-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.006

  4. Tal R, Seifer DB. Ovarian reserve testing: a user's guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217: 129-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.027

  5. Broer SL, Dólleman M, Opmeer BC, Fauser BC, et al. AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17: 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq034

  6. Vural B, Cakiroglu Y, Vural F, Filiz S. Hormonal and functional biomarkers in ovarian response. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 289: 1355-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3132-1

  7. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, et al; ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 1616-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der092.

  8. Humaidan P, Alviggi C, Fischer R, Esteves SC. The novel POSEIDON stratification of 'Low prognosis patients in Assisted Reproductive Technology' and its proposed marker of successful outcome. 2016 Dec 23; 5: 2911. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10382.1

  9. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, et al. Antimullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update 2010; 16: 113-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp036

  10. Li HW, Lee VC, Lau EY, Yeung WS, et al. Role of baseline antral follicle count and anti-Mullerian hormone in prediction of cumulative live birth in the first in vitro fertilisation cycle: a retrospective cohort analysis. PLoS One 2013; 23: 8- e61095. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061095

  11. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015; 103: e9-e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.093

  12. Devine K, Mumford SL, Wu M, DeCherney AH, et al. Diminished ovarian reserve in the United States assisted reproductive technology population: diagnostic trends among 181.536 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Fertil Steril 2015; 104: 612-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.05.017

  13. Infertility Workup for the Women's Health Specialist: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 781. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 133: e377-e384. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003271

  14. Zhang Y, Xu Y, Xue Q, Shang J, et al. Discordance between antral follicle counts and anti-Müllerian hormone levels in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019; 17 (1): 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-019-0497-4

  15. Vaegter KK, Lakic TG, Olovsson M, Berglund L, et al. Which factors are most predictive for live birth after in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatments? Analysis of 100 prospectively recorded variables in 8,400 IVF/ICSI single-embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 641-648.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.12.005

  16. Liao S, Xiong J, Tu H, Hu C, et al. Prediction of in vitro fertilization outcome at different antral follicle count thresholds combined with female age, female cause of infertility, and ovarian response in a prospective cohort of 8269 women. Medicine 2019; 98: e17470. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000017470

  17. Jayaprakasan K, Chan Y, Islam R, Haoula Z, et al. Prediction of in vitro fertilization outcome at different antral follicle count thresholds in a prospective cohort of 1,012 women. Fertil Steril 2012; 98: 657-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.05.042

  18. Baker VL, Brown MB, Luke B, Smith GW, et al. Gonadotropin dose is negatively correlated with live birth rate: analysis of more than 650,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril 2015; 104: 1145-52.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1151

  19. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20: 124-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt037

  20. Leijdekkers JA, Torrance HL, Schouten NE, van Tilborg TC, et al. Individualized ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI treatment: it is time to stop using high FSH doses in predicted low responders. Hum Reprod 2020; 35: 1954-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez184

  21. Malchau SS, Henningsen AA, Forman J, Loft A, et al. Cumulative live birth rate prognosis based on the number of aspirated oocytes in previous ART cycles. Hum Reprod 2019; 34: 171-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey341

  22. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Blastocyst culture and transfer in clinically assisted reproduction: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 1246-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.09.011

  23. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 901-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.02.107

  24. Majumder K, Gelbaya TA, Laing I, Nardo LG. The use of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count to predict the potential of oocytes and embryos. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2010; 150: 166-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.02.029

  25. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 1768-74. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der106

  26. Pacheco A, Cruz M, García Velasco JA. Impact of very low anti-Müllerian hormone on pregnancy success. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2017; 29: 131-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000354

  27. Kedem A, Haas J, Geva LL, Yerushalmi G, et al. Ongoing pregnancy rates in women with low and extremely low AMH levels. A multivariate analysis of 769 cycles. PLoS One 2013; 8 (12): e81629. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081629

  28. Reichman DE, Goldschlag D, Rosenwaks Z. Value of antimüllerian hormone as a prognostic indicator of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 1012-8.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.039

  29. Li HW, Lee VC, Lau EY, Yeung WS, et al. Ovarian response and cumulative live birth rate of women undergoing in-vitro fertilization who had discordant anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count measurements: a retrospective study. PLoS One 2014; 9:e108493. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pone.0108493

  30. Liu L, Zhou C. Anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count differ in their ability to predict cumulative treatment outcomes of the first complete ovarian stimulation cycle in patients from POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2020; 46: 1801-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14269

  31. Huang X, Liu R, Shen W, Cai Y, et al. An elective single cleavage embryo transfer strategy to minimize twin live birth rate based on a prediction model from double cleavage embryos transfer patients. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020; 3: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2020.1770215




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com