Comparison of the pregnancy outcomes of progestin-primed vs. antagonist ovarian stimulation in patients with poor ovarian response: a retrospective study

References

• Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62:2–10. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.03.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou Z, Zheng D, Wu H, et al. Epidemiology of infertility in China: a population-based study. BJOG. 2018;125(4):432–441. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14966.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dosouto C, Haahr T, Humaidan P. Advances in ovulation trigger strategies. Panminerva Med. 2019;61(1):42–51. doi: 10.23736/S0031-0808.18.03537-1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badawy A, Wageah A, El Gharib M, et al. Prediction and diagnosis of poor ovarian response: the dilemma. J Reprod Infertil. 2011;12(4):241–248.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oehninger S. Poor responders in in vitro fertilization (IVF) therapy: the challenge continues. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2011;3(2):101–108.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blumenfeld Z. What is the best regimen for ovarian stimulation of poor responders in ART/IVF? Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:192. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, 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):1616–1624. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der092.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abu-Musa A, Haahr T, Humaidan P. Novel physiology and definition of poor ovarian response; clinical recommendations. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(6):2110. doi: 10.3390/ijms21062110.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang W, Wang M, Wang S, et al. Luteal phase ovarian stimulation for poor ovarian responders. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018;22(3):193–198. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20180045.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang Y, Zhang C, Shu J, et al. Adjuvant treatment strategies in ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26(2):247–263. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmz046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Ubaldi N, et al. What is new in the management of poor ovarian response in IVF? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(3):155–162. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yildiz S, Turkgeldi E, Angun B, et al. Comparison of a novel flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol and the flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2019;112(4):677–683. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pacchiarotti A, Selman H, Valeri C, et al. Ovarian stimulation protocol in IVF: an up-to-date review of the literature. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2016;17(4):303–315. doi: 10.2174/1389201017666160118103147.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montoya-Botero P, Drakopoulos P, González-Foruria I, et al. Fresh and cumulative live birth rates in mild versus conventional stimulation for IVF cycles in poor ovarian responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021(1):hoaa066. doi: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa066.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Ayeleke RO, et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4(4):CD001750. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001750.pub4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yousaf MA, Noreen M, Saleem T, et al. A cross-sectional survey of knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) toward pandemic COVID-19 among the general population of Jammu and Kashmir, India. Soc Work Public Health. 2020;35(7):569–578. doi: 10.1080/19371918.2020.1806983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrestha D, La X, Feng HL. Comparison of different stimulation protocols used in in vitro fertilization: a review. Ann Transl Med. 2015;3(10):137. doi: 10.3978/j.issn.2305-5839.2015.04.09.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Le H, Nguyen DD, Cao AT, et al. Comparative effectiveness of mild or conventional GnRH-antagonist protocols for ovarian stimulation in poor responders (Poseidon Group 4). Front Reprod Health. 2020;2:606036. doi: 10.3389/frph.2020.606036.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huang J, Lu W, Wang L, et al. A preliminary effect analysis of family doctor and medical insurance payment coordination reform in Changning District of Shanghai, China. BMC Fam Pract. 2019;20(1):60. doi: 10.1186/s12875-019-0949-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massin N. New stimulation regimens: endogenous and exogenous progesterone use to block the LH surge during ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(2):211–220. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Marca A, Capuzzo M. Use of progestins to inhibit spontaneous ovulation during ovarian stimulation: the beginning of a new era? Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39(2):321–331. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.03.212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng Q, Cao X, Wang J, et al. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation vs mild stimulation in women with advanced age above 40: a retrospective cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019;17(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12958-019-0518-3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkgeldi E, Yildiz S, Cekic SG, et al. Effectiveness of the flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol compared to the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in women with decreased ovarian reserve. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2020;25(2):306–312. doi: 10.1080/14647273.2020.1794060.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang P, Tang M, Qin A. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation is a feasible method for poor ovarian responders undergoing in IVF/ICSI compared to a GnRH antagonist protocol: a retrospective study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48(2):99–102. doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.10.008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu Y, Zhao FC, Sun Y, et al. Luteal-phase protocol in poor ovarian response: a comparative study with an antagonist protocol. J Int Med Res. 2017;45(6):1731–1738. doi: 10.1177/0300060516669898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eftekhar M, Hoseini M, Saeed L. Progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in polycystic ovarian syndrome: an RCT. IJRM. 2019;17(9):671–676. doi: 10.18502/ijrm.v17i9.5103.
   Google Scholar
• Kosmas IP, Kolibianakis EM, Devroey P. Association of estradiol levels on the day of hCG administration and pregnancy achievement in IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2446–2453. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serna J, Cholquevilque JL, Cela V, et al. Estradiol supplementation during the luteal phase of IVF-ICSI patients: a randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(6):2190–2195. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.10.021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joo BS, Park SH, An BM, et al. Serum estradiol levels during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation influence the pregnancy outcome of in vitro fertilization in a concentration-dependent manner. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):442–446. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.066.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orvieto R, Kirshenbaum M, Galiano V, et al. Stop GnRH-Agonist combined with multiple-dose GnRH-antagonist protocol for patients with “genuine” poor response undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11:182. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.00182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jing M, Lin C, Zhu W, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of GnRH-agonist long-protocol and GnRH-antagonist protocol for in vitro fertilization. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):8732. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65558-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cai Q, Wan F, Appleby D, et al. Quality of embryos transferred and progesterone levels are the most important predictors of live birth after fresh embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31(2):185–194. doi: 10.1007/s10815-013-0129-4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laasch C, Puscheck E. Cumulative embryo score, not endometrial thickness, is best for pregnancy prediction in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21(2):47–50. doi: 10.1023/b:jarg.0000025937.43936.73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lv H, Li X, Du J, et al. Effect of endometrial thickness and embryo quality on live-birth rate of fresh IVF/ICSI cycles: a retrospective cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2020;18(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s12958-020-00636-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giorgetti C, Terriou P, Auquier P, et al. Embryo score to predict implantation after in-vitro fertilization: based on 957 single embryo transfers. Hum Reprod. 1995;10(9):2427–2431. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a136312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irani M, Reichman D, Robles A, et al. Morphologic grading of euploid blastocysts influences implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(3):664–670. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.11.012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar