Ovarian stimulation with human and recombinant gonadotropin – comparison of in vitro fertilization efficiency with use of time-lapse monitoring

Reproductive Health

Iwona Bojar¹  Artur Wdowiak¹ 

[1] International Scientific Association for the Support and Development of Medical Technologies, Lublin, Poland

关键词: Time-lapse monitoring;    Estradiol;    Anti-Müllerian hormone;    Follicle-stimulating hormone;    Embryo development dynamics;    Ovarian stimulation;    Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI);    In vitro fertilization (IVF);   

Others  :  1235022
DOI  :  10.1186/s12978-015-0106-8

 received in 2015-07-24, accepted in 2015-12-04,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Achieving pregnancy by in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment depends on many factors, including the ovaries’ capacity and the efficiency of ovarian stimulation. The aim of this study was to assess the influence of ovarian stimulation with human and recombinant gonadotropin, as well as specific hormonal parameters, on the effectiveness of IVF and the dynamics of embryonic development.

Methods

The study involved 221 women aged 25–35 years in whom intracytoplasmic sperm injection was performed. The ovarian stimulation was carried out according to the short protocol: injections of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue were followed by human (hFSH) and recombinant (rFSH) follicle-stimulating hormone administration. The growth of embryos was monitored with a time-lapse system. Levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) were measured before ovarian stimulation, and levels of estradiol were assessed on the day of administration of recombinant chorionic gonadotropin.

Results

Pregnancy was achieved in 77 women (group A) – 42 (54.55 %) of them were stimulated with hFSH and 35 (45.45 %) were stimulated with rFSH. Among the 144 women in whom pregnancy was not achieved (group B), hFSH was administered to 73 (50.69 %) women and rFSH to 71 (49.31 %) women. In both groups subsequent embryo development stages were usually noted earlier after hFSH stimulation than after rFSH stimulation. The average values of AMH, estradiol, and estradiol per >17 mm follicle were higher in group A; in turn, FSH and LH mean levels were higher in group B. ROC curve analysis showed no statistically significant differences between accuracy of using FSH and AMH levels to predict pregnancy after IVF.

Conclusions

The kind of gonadotropin applied to stimulate ovaries impacts the dynamics of embryo development - in women stimulated with hFSH, subsequent development stages were usually observed earlier than in women treated with rFSH; however, there was no statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates between women who were hFSH stimulated and those who were rFSH stimulated. The mean estradiol level was higher in women who achieved pregnancy than in women in whom pregnancy was not achieved AMH and FSH have the greater impact on achieving pregnancy than other hormones, and the value of AMH and FSH in predicting pregnancy is similar.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Wdowiak and Bojar.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Fig. 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology: ART Factsheet. http://www.eshre.eu/ESHRE/English/Guidelines-Legal/ART-fact-sheet/page.aspx/1061 (2013). Accessed 12 Sep 2013.
• [2]Wołczyński S, Radwan M (red). Algorytmy diagnostyczno-lecznicze w zastosowaniu do niepłodności. Polskie Towarzystwo Medycyny Rozrodu (2014). http://rozrodczosc.pl/ptmr/uploads/docs/Algorytmy_w_nieplodnosci_06_05_2011.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2011.
• [3]Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006; 12:685-718.
• [4]Zwart-van Rijkom JE, Broekmans FJ, Leufkens HG. From HMG through purified urinary FSH preparations to recombinant FSH: a substitution study. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17:857-65.
• [5]Daya S. Updated meta-analysis of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) versus urinary FSH for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2002; 77:711-4.
• [6]Filicori M, Cognigni GE, Pocognoli P, Tabarelli C, Ferlini F, Perri T et al.. Comparison of controlled ovarian stimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin or recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertil Steril. 2003; 80:390-7.
• [7]Kilani Z, Dakkak A, Ghunaim S, Cognigni GE, Tabarelli C, Parmegiani L et al.. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing highly puri®ed hMG with recombinant FSH in women undergoing ICSI: ovarian response and clinical outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2003; 18:1194-99.
• [8]Blazar AS. Serum estradiol positively predicts outcomes in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004; 81:1707-9.
• [9]Ng EHY, Yeung WSB, Lau EYL, So WWK, Ho PC. High serum estradiol concentrations in fresh IVF cycles do not impair implantation and pregnancy rates in subsequent frozen- thawed embryo transfer cycles. Hum Reprod. 2000; 15:250-5.
• [10]Wong C, Loewke KE, Bossert NL, Behr B, De Jonge CJ, Baer TM et al.. Non-invasive imaging of human embryos before embryonic genome activation predicts development to the blastocyst stage. Nat Biotechnol. 2010; 28:1115-21.
• [11]Arav A, Aroyo A, Yavin S, Roth Z. Prediction of embryonic developmental competence by time-lapse observation and ‘shortest-half’ analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008; 17:669-75.
• [12]Azzarello A, Hoest T, Mikkelsen AL. The impact of pronuclei morphology and dynamicity on live birth outcome after time-lapse culture. Hum Reprod. 2012; 27:2649-2657.
• [13]Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, Ivani K, Chenette PE, Boostanfar R et al.. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril. 2013; 100:412-419.
• [14]Sullivan MW, Stewart-Akers A, Krasnow JS, Berga SL, Zeleznik AJ. Ovarian responses in women to recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone (LH): a role for LH in the final stages of follicular maturation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999; 84:228-232.
• [15]The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod. 2011; 26:1270-83.
• [16]Kirkegaard K, Kesmodel US, Hindkjær JJ, Ingerslev HJ. Time-lapse parameters as predictors of blastocyst development and pregnancy outcome in embryos from good prognosis patients: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2013; 28:2643-51.
• [17]Polanski LT, Barbosa MA, Martins WP, Baumgarten MN, Campbell B, Brosens J et al.. Interventions to improve reproductive outcomes in women with elevated natural killer cells undergoing assisted reproduction techniques: a systematic review of literature. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29:65-75.
• [18]Muñoz M, Cruz M, Humaidan P, Garrido N, Pérez-Cano I, Meseguer M. Dose of recombinant FSH and oestradiol concentration on day of HCG affect embryo development kinetics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012; 25:382-9.
• [19]Papageorgiou T, Guibert J, Goffinet F, Patrat C, Fulla Y, Janssens Y et al.. Percentile curves of serum oestradiol levels during controlled ovarian stimulation in 905 cycles stimulated with recombinant FSH show that high oestradiol is not detrimental to IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17:2846-50.
• [20]Pena JE, Chang PL, Chan LK, Zeitoun K, Thornton MH, Sauer MV. Supraphysiological oestradiol levels do not affect oocyte and embryo quality in oocyte donation cycles. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17:83-7.
• [21]Manno M, Cervi M, Zadro D, Fuggetta G, Adamo V, Tomei F. Different ART outcomes at increasing peak estradiol levels with long and antagonist protocols: retrospective insights from ten years’ experience. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011; 28:693-8.
• [22]Kara M, Kutlu T, Sofuoglu K, Devranoglu B, Cetinkaya T. Association between serum estradiol level on the hCG administration day and IVF-ICSI outcome. Iran J Reprod Med. 2012; 10:53-8.
• [23]Huang JY, Rosenwaks Z. In vitro fertilisation treatment and factors affecting success. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2012; 26:777-88.
• [24]Lehmann P, Vélez MP, Saumet J, Lapensée L, Jamal W, Bissonnette F et al.. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH): a reliable biomarker of oocyte quality in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014; 27:493-8.
• [25]Reichman DE, Goldschlag D, Rosenwaks Z. Value of antimüllerian hormone as a prognostic indicator of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101:1012-18.
• [26]Hussain M, Cahill D, Akande V, Gordon U. Discrepancies between anti-Müllerian hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone in assisted reproduction. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;383278. doi: 10.1155/2013/383278.
• [27]Ramachandran A, Jamdade K, Kumar P, Adiga SK, Bhat RG, Ferrao SR. Is there a need for luteinizing hormone (LH) estimation in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists and recombinantf-stimulating hormone (rFSH)? J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8:90-2.
• [28]Perez Mayorga M, Gromoll J, Behre HM, Gassner C, Nieschlag E, Simoni M. Ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) stimulation depends on the FSH receptor genotype. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000; 85:3365-9.