Optimal cutoff value of basal anti-mullerian hormone in iranian infertile women for prediction of ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome and poor response to stimulation

Reproductive Health

Mehrshad Abbasi²  Saeed Mahdavi⁴  Zahra Panahi¹  Maryam Bagheri¹  Mohammad Ezzati³  Ensieh Shahrokh Tehraninejad¹  Azam Manshadi Tarafdari¹  Malek Mansour Aghssa¹ 

[1] Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Valiasr Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, 1419433141, Iran;Department of Nuclear Medicine, Valiasr Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran;Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington Hospital Center, Washington, DC, USA;Saeed Medical Laboratories, Tehran, Iran

关键词: Anti-mullerian hormone;    Ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome;    Ovulation induction;    Assisted Reproductive Technology;   

Others  :  1226982
DOI  :  10.1186/s12978-015-0053-4

 received in 2014-08-02, accepted in 2015-07-04,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Aim

We intended to establish the threshold of Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH) for detection of Ovarian Hyper-Stimulation Syndrome (OHSS) and poor response to treatment in Iranian infertile women.

Methods

Pre-stimulation menstrual cycle day-3 hormonal indices including basal AMH values were measured in 105 infertile women aged 32.5 ± 4.3 years. Patients underwent long GnRH agonist Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation (COH) in a referral infertility center (Tehran, Iran). The gonadotropin dose was determined based on the age and basal serum Follicular Stimulating Hormone (FSH) level. The IVF/ICSI cycles were followed and the clinical and sonographic data were recorded.

Results

Sixteen cases developed OHSS. The prevalence of PCOS was higher in subjects with OHSS [62.5 % (38.8-86.2) vs. 17 % (9.2-24.9)]. The patients with OHSS had higher ovarian follicular count [23.7 (3.2) vs. 9.1 (0.5); p < 0.05], collected oocytes [13.5 (1.9) vs. 6.9 (0.5); p < 0.05] and AMH level [7.9 (0.7) vs. 3.6 (0.3); p < 0.05]. Basal AMH level and oocyte yields (but not age, BMI, and PCOS) correlated with occurrence of OHSS; and only the AMH levels were associated with poor ovarian response (oocytes yield ≤ 4). The optimal cutoff value for the prediction of OHSS was 6.95 ng/ml (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve: 0.86; CI: 0.78-0.95; sensitivity: 75 %; specificity: 84 %; odds ratio for occurrence of OHSS: 9 and p < 0.001). The optimal cut point to discriminate poor response (oocytes ≤4) was 1.65 ng/ml ( AUC : 0.8; CI: 0.69-0.91; sensitivity: 89 % specificity : 71 %; and OR = 23.8 and P value <0.001).

Conclusions

Iranian women with basal AMH level > 6.95 ng/ml are at high risk of developing OHSS and those with AMH level < 1.65 ng/ml are poor responders.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Aghssa et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Tremellen KP, Kolo M, Gilmore A, Lekamge DN. Anti-müllerian hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 45:20-24.
• [2]Van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, Scheffer GJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, de Jong FH, Fauser BJ, Themmen AP, te Velde ER. Serum antimullerian hormone levels best reflect the reproductive decline with age in normal women with proven fertility: a longitudinal study. Fertil Steril. 2005; 83(4):979-87.
• [3]van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Bancsi LF, Jong FH, Themmen AP. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17:3065-3071.
• [4]La Marca A, Giulini S, Tirelli A, Bertucci E, Marsella T, Xella S, Volpe A. Anti-Mullerian hormone measurement on any day of the menstrual cycle strongly predicts ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22:766-771.
• [5]Hehenkamp WJ, Looman CW, Themmen AP, de Jong FH, Te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ. Anti-Müllerian hormone levels in the spontaneous menstrual cycle do not show substantial fluctuation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006; 91(10):4057-63.
• [6]La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, Volpe A. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21:3103-3107.
• [7]Kissell KA, Danaher MR, Schisterman EF, Wactawski-Wende J, Ahrens KA, Schliep K, Perkins NJ, Sjaarda L, Weck J, Mumford SL. Biological variability in serum anti-Müllerian hormone throughout the menstrual cycle in ovulatory and sporadic anovulatory cycles in eumenorrheic women. Hum Reprod. 2014; 29(8):1764-72.
• [8]Seifer DB, MacLaughlin DT, Christian BP, Feng B, Shelden RM. Early follicular serum mullerian-inhibiting substance levels are associated with ovarian response during assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2002; 77:468-471.
• [9]Broer SL, Do’lleman M, Opmeer BC, Fauser BC, Mol BW, Broekmans FJM. AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011; 17(1):46-54.
• [10]Golan A, Ron-EL R, Herman A, Sofer Y, Weinraub Z, Caspi E. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: An update review. Obstet Gynecol Survey. 1989; 44:430-40.
• [11]Navot D, Bergh PA, Laufer N. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in novel reproductive technologies: prevention and treatment. Fertil Steril. 1992; 58:249-261.
• [12]Perkins NJ, Schisterman EF. The Inconsistency of “Optimal” Cut-points Using Two ROC Based Criteria. Am J Epidemiol. 2006; 163(7):670-675.
• [13]McLaughlin T, Abbasi F, Cheal K, Chu J, Lamendola C, Reaven G. Use of Metabolic Markers To Identify Overweight Individuals Who Are Insulin Resistant. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 139:802-809.
• [14]Lainas GT, Kolibianakis EM, Sfontouris IA, Zorzovilis IZ, Petsas GK, Tarlatzi TB, Tarlatzis BC, Lainas TG. Outpatient management of severe early OHSS by administration of GnRH antagonist in the luteal phase: an observational cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012; 31:10-69.
• [15]Riggs RM, Duran EH, Baker MW, Kimble TD, Hobeika E, Yin L, Matos-Bodden L, Leader B, Stadtmauer L. Assessment of ovarian reserve with anti-Mullerian hormone: a comparison of the predictive value of anti-Mullerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, and age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199:202-208.
• [16]Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles– implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007; 22:2414-2421.
• [17]Lee TH, Liu CH, Huang CC, Wu YL, Shih YT, Ho HN, Yang YS, Lee MS. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol levels as predictors of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in assisted reproduction technology cycles. Hum Reprod. 2008; 23:160-167.
• [18]Eldar-Geva T, Ben Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinowitz R, Markowitz E, Mimoni T, Gal M, Zylber-Haran E, Margalioth EJ. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005; 20:3178-3183.
• [19]Nardo LG, Gelbaya TA, Wilkinson H, Roberts SA, Yates A, Pemberton P, Laing I. Circulating basal anti-Mullerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009; 92:1586-1593.
• [20]Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: anti-Mullerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2–6 mm). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009; 26:319-325.
• [21]Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G. Basal level of anti-Müllerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod. 2006; 21(8):2022-6.
• [22]La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, Stabile G, Volpe A. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010; 16(2):113-30.
• [23]Li HW, Ng EH, Wong BP, Anderson RA, Ho PC, Yeung WS. Correlation between three assay systems for anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) determination.J. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012; 29(12):1443-6.
• [24]Garcia-Velasco JA. How to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a new indication for dopamine agonists. Reprod BioMed Online. 2009; 12:71-75.
• [25]Kahnberg A, Enskog A, Brannstrom M, Lundin K, Bergh C. Prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women undergoingin vitro fertilization. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica. 2009; 88:1373-1381.
• [26]Aramwit P, Pruksananonda K, Kasettratat N, Jammeechai K. Risk factors for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in Thai patients using gonadotropins for in vitro fertilization. J Health-Syst Pharm. 2008; 65:1148-53.
• [27]Kini S, Raymond HW, Morrell D, Pickering S, Thong KJ. Anti-mullerian hormone and cumulative pregnancy outcome in in-vitro fertilization. J Asist Reprod Genet. 2010; 27:449-456.
• [28]Ward G. AMH – where are we up to? Pathology. 2015; 47(S1):s16.