Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction · 2011
[Cancellation of IVF-ET cycles: poor prognosis, poor responder, or variability of the response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation? An analysis of 142 cancellations].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lamazou F, Fuchs F, Grynberg M, Gallot V, Herzog E, Fanchin R, Frydman N, Frydman R
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This retrospective study aimed at analyzing IVF-ET management and outcome after cancellation of a first cycle for poor response.
PATIENTS AND METHOD: One hundred and forty-two infertile patients were included in this observational study. After an overall analysis on the outcome of the second IVF-ET attempt, a sub-analysis was performed according to the presence or the absence of poor prognostic criteria defined as mentioned: patient age superior to 38 years old, antral follicle count (3-9 mm in diameter) inferior to 10 on cycle day 3 and day 3 serum AMH and FSH levels less than 1 ng/mL and more than 10 IU/mL, respectively. Main outcome measures were the cancellation rates, pregnancy and live birth rates.
RESULTS: When a controlled ovarian stimulation was performed, patients with poor prognosis had higher cancellation rates (37.8% vs. 13.3%, P<0.004) and lower pregnancy and live birth rates (22.2% vs. 35.0%, P<0.05 and 11.1% vs. 26.1%, P<0.05, respectively) as compared to good prognosis women.
CONCLUSION: The relatively high cancellation rate in patients with poor prognosis raises the question of the use of IVF modified natural cycle in this group.
PATIENTS AND METHOD: One hundred and forty-two infertile patients were included in this observational study. After an overall analysis on the outcome of the second IVF-ET attempt, a sub-analysis was performed according to the presence or the absence of poor prognostic criteria defined as mentioned: patient age superior to 38 years old, antral follicle count (3-9 mm in diameter) inferior to 10 on cycle day 3 and day 3 serum AMH and FSH levels less than 1 ng/mL and more than 10 IU/mL, respectively. Main outcome measures were the cancellation rates, pregnancy and live birth rates.
RESULTS: When a controlled ovarian stimulation was performed, patients with poor prognosis had higher cancellation rates (37.8% vs. 13.3%, P<0.004) and lower pregnancy and live birth rates (22.2% vs. 35.0%, P<0.05 and 11.1% vs. 26.1%, P<0.05, respectively) as compared to good prognosis women.
CONCLUSION: The relatively high cancellation rate in patients with poor prognosis raises the question of the use of IVF modified natural cycle in this group.