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

2021, Number 03

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2021; 89 (03)

Intrauterine insemination versus in vitro fertilization in poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Rodríguez-Purata J, Gómez-Cuesta MJ, Cervantes-Bravo E

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 232-246
PDF size: 384.71 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine whether in patients with low ovarian response the continuation of the in vitro fertilization procedure is associated with increased live birth rates versus conversion to intrauterine insemination.
Methodology: Systematic search of studies with reported live birth rates in major databases. Quality assessment of studies was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. Subgroup analysis by follicular response was performed.
Results: Twenty-eight citations were retrieved from which 18 were chosen and only 7 including data from 3398 patient-cycles (in vitro fertilization: 2115; IUI: 1283) were analyzed. The mean NOS quality score was 9 versus cycle conversion to intrauterine insemination. Women with low ovarian response to stimulation, during an in vitro fertilization cycle, who continued with oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer were more likely to have a live birth: 9.2% versus 3.7% (OR 3.15 (95%CI: 2.26-4.41)). In analysis by follicular response, in vitro fertilization was superior, except when a monofollicular response was observed: 3.6% with in vitro fertilization vs 2.7% (OR 1.02 (95%CI: 0.37-2.84)).
Conclusion: In patients with low ovarian response (≤ 4 follicles) during an in vitro fertilization cycle, persistence with in vitro fertilization is associated with higher odds of achieving a live birth versus conversion to intrauterine insemination, except in cycles with a monofollicular response, where conversion of the cycle to intrauterine insemination seems more judicious, since the odds of a live birth are similar and no surgical procedures or anesthesia are needed.


REFERENCES

  1. The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM), for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Calhaz-Jorge C, et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: results generated from European registers by ESHRE†. Hum Reprod. 2017; 32 (10): 1957-73. doi.10.1093/humrep/dex264.

  2. Macklon NS, Stouffer RL, Giudice LC, Fauser BCJM. The Science behind 25 Years of Ovarian Stimulation for in Vitro Fertilization. Endocr Rev. 2006; 27 (2): 170-207. doi.10.1210/er.2005-0015.

  3. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJC, Broekmans FJM, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor?: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012; 18 (1): 1-11. doi.10.1093/humupd/dmr037.

  4. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of “poor response” to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26 (7): 1616-24. doi.10.1093/humrep/ der092.

  5. Veleva Z, Järvelä IY, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Martikainen H, Tapanainen JS. An initial low response predicts poor outcome in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection despite improved ovarian response in consecutive cycles. Fertil Steril. 2005; 83 (5): 1384-90. doi.10.1016/j. fertnstert.2004.11.056.

  6. Maheshwari A, Stofberg L, Bhattacharya S. Effect of overweight and obesity on assisted reproductive technology-- a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2007; 13 (5): 433-44. doi.10.1093/humupd/dmm017.

  7. Simoni M, Nieschlag E, Gromoll J. Isoforms and single nucleotide polymorphisms of the FSH receptor gene: implications for human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2002; 8 (5): 413-21. doi.10.1093/humupd/8.5.413.

  8. Galey-Fontaine J, Cédrin-Durnerin I, Chaïbi R, Massin N, Hugues J-N. Age and ovarian reserve are distinct predictive factors of cycle outcome in low responders. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005; 10 (1): 94-99. doi.10.1016/s1472- 6483(10)60808-5.

  9. Saldeen P, Källen K, Sundström P. The probability of successful IVF outcome after poor ovarian response. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007; 86 (4): 457-61. doi.10.1080/00016340701194948.

  10. Matorras R, Corcóstegui B, Mendoza R, et al. Converting an IVF cycle to IUI in low responders with at least 2 follicles. J Reprod Med. 2003; 48 (10): 789-91.

  11. Lashen H, Ledger W, Lopez-Bernal A, Barlow D. Poor responders to ovulation induction: is proceeding to in-vitro fertilization worthwhile? Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 1999; 14 (4): 964-69. doi.10.1093/humrep/14.4.964.

  12. Abusheikha N, Lass A, Burnley A, Brinsden P. In vitro fertilization cycles converted to intrauterine insemination because of poor follicular response have low success rates. Fertil Steril. 2001; 75 (3): 634-35. doi.10.1016/s0015- 0282(00)01739-8.

  13. Freour T, Dubourdieu S, Mirallie S, Langlois ML, Jean M, Barrière P. IVF conversion to IUI in poor responders: an observational study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010; 282 (4): 445-49. doi.10.1007/s00404-010-1515-0.

  14. Wood S, Rahim R, Searle T, et al. Optimal treatment for poor responders to ovarian stimulation: does in vitro insemination offer any advantages to intrauterine insemination? Hum Fertil Camb Engl. 2003; 6 (1): 13-18. doi.10.1080/14 64770312331368923.

  15. Fujii DT, Quesnell JL, Heitmann RJ. Conversion to IUI versus continuance with IVF in low responder patients: A systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; 227: 35-40. doi.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.05.032.

  16. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and metaanalyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62 (10): 1006-12. doi.10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.

  17. Schardt C, Adams MB, Owens T, Keitz S, Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2007; 7: 16. doi.10.1186/1472-6947-7-16.

  18. Hartling L, Hamm M, Milne A, et al. Validity and Inter-Rater Reliability Testing of Quality Assessment Instruments. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92293/.

  19. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [webpage on the Internet]. Ottawa, ON: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; 2011. http:// www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.

  20. Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Board on Health Care Services, Institute of Medicine. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. (Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, eds.). National Academies Press; 2011: 13059. doi.10.17226/13059.

  21. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21 (11): 1539-58. doi.10.1002/sim.1186.

  22. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011; 343: d5928-d5928. doi.10.1136/ bmj.d5928.

  23. Shahine LK, Lathi RB, Baker VL. Oocyte retrieval versus conversion to intrauterine insemination in patients with poor response to gonadotropin therapy. Fertil Steril. 2009; 92 (4): 1315-17. doi.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.03.059.

  24. Norian JM, Levens ED, Richter KS, Widra EA, Levy MJ. Conversion from assisted reproductive technology to intrauterine insemination in low responders: is it advantageous? Fertil Steril. 2010; 94 (6): 2073-77. doi.10.1016/j. fertnstert.2009.12.056.

  25. Nicopoullos JDM, Abdalla H. Poor response cycles: when should we cancel? Comparison of outcome between egg collection, intrauterine insemination conversion, and follow-up cycles after abandonment. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95 (1): 68-71. doi.10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.05.030.

  26. Shohieb A, Mostafa M, El-Khayat W. Conversion of ICSI cycles to IUI in poor responders to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2012; 17 (1): 42-46. doi.10.1016/j.mefs.2011.07.005.

  27. Reichman DE, Gunnala V, Meyer L, et al. In vitro fertilization versus conversion to intrauterine insemination in the setting of three or fewer follicles: how should patients proceed when follicular response falls short of expectation? Fertil Steril. 2013; 100 (1): 94-99. doi.10.1016/j. fertnstert.2013.02.049.

  28. Quinquin M, Mialon O, Isnard V, et al. In vitro fertilization versus conversion to intrauterine insemination in Bologna-criteria poor responders: how to decide which option? Fertil Steril. 2014; 102 (6): 1596-601. doi.10.1016/j. fertnstert.2014.08.023.

  29. Elzeiny H, Garrett C, Toledo M, Stern K, McBain J, Baker HWG. A randomised controlled trial of intra-uterine insemination versus in vitro fertilization in patients with idiopathic or mild male infertility. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014; 54 (2): 156-61. doi.10.1111/ajo.12168.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com