Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The clinical analysis of poor ovarian response in in-vitro-fertilization embryo-transfer among Chinese couples

  • Assisted Reproduction
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To explore the prevalence, predictor of clinical pregnancy and possible aetiology of poor ovarian response (POR) in in vitro fertilization–embryo transfer (IVF–ET) in Chinese.

Methods

A total of 4,600 retrieval oocyte cycles were finished between July 1, 2004 and April 30, 2006. Poor ovarian responses were observed in 426 patients of 472 cycles undergoing IVF, which were selected on the same retrieve oocyte day as the control group. The outcome of IVF–ET and the common markers of ovarian reserve were compared.

Results

The patients had previous ovarian surgery in 64 cycles of 472 poor ovarian response cycles. The group with poor ovarian response has significant differences in comparison with the control group in age (36.6 ± 4.2 vs 33.3 ± 4.04), ovarian surgeries (13.6 vs 2.8%), dose of gonadotrophin (58.5 ± 15.8 vs 40.6 ± 17.0), fertilization rate (71.5 vs 86%) and pregnancy rate (14.8 vs 36.7%). In the group with poor ovarian responses, clinical pregnancy rate declined significantly in women aged >40 years than in those aged ≤40 years (2.8 vs 18.5%, P < 0.001). The age, basal serum follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), basal serum luteinizing hormone (LH), basal oestradiol (E2) concentrations, FSH to LH ratio and the antral follicle count (AFC) are the common markers of ovarian reserve in our center. We found that there were significant differences in age, basal FSH, FSH-to-LH ratio and the antral follicle count. But no statistical significant differences were observed in basal oestradiol concentration and basal serum LH when comparing the two groups. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to study the relation among age, FSH, LH, E2, AFC and clinical pregnancy, and the age (odds ratio, 0.863; 95% confidence interval, 0.805–0.925; p = 0.000) was the only variable selected.

Conclusion

Our data show that the prevalence of poor ovarian response in Chinese is 11.9%. Previous ovarian surgery is associated with poor ovarian responses. The pregnancy rate of women with poor ovarian response is low in IVF–ET, especially the decline in clinical pregnancy rate of women aged >40 years became accelerated. Correct identification of those who are at risk for POR prior to stimulation is helpful in tailoring the best stimulation protocol to individual patients. Chronological age significantly improved the prediction of clinical pregnancy of poor ovarian responders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implication for forecasting menophause. Hum Reprod. 1992;7(10):1342–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kailasam C, Keay SD, Wilson P, Ford WC, Jenkins JM. Defining poor ovarian response during IVF cycles, in women aged <40 years, and its relationships with treatment outcome. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(17):1544–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Lashen H, Ledger W. Management of poor responders in IVF. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(7):1919, Jul.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Mol BW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Performance of basal follicle-stimulating hormone in the prediction of poor ovarian response and failure to become pregnant after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(5):1091–100, May.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS, Jenkins JM. Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;14(5):521–7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hofmann GE, Toner JP, Muasher SJ, Jones GS. High-dose follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) ovarian stimulation in low-responder patients for in vitro fertilization. J In Vitro Fertil Embryo Transf. 1989;6(5):285–9, Oct.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Karande VC, Jones GS, Veeck LL, Muasher SJ. High-dose follicle-stimulating hormone stimulation at the onset of the menstrual cycle does not improve the in vitro fertilization outcome in low-responder patients. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(3):486–9, Mar.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Land JA, Yarmolinskaya MI, Dumoulin JC, Evers JL. High-dose human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation in poor responders does not improve in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(5):961–5, May.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, de Jong FH, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Predictors of poor ovarian responses in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(2):328–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Pellicer A, Ardiles G, Neuspiller F, Remohi J, Simon C, Bonilla-Musoles F. Evaluation of the ovarian reserve in young low responders with normal basal levels of follicle-stimulating hormone using three-dimensional ultrasonography. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(4):671–5, Oct.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dechaud H, Ferron G, Anahory T, Arnal F, Humeau C, Hedon B. Obesity and assisted reproduction techniques. Contracept Fertil Sex. 1998;26(7–8):564–7, Jul–Aug.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Tulandi T, Sammour A, Valenti D, Child TJ, Seti L, Tan SL. Ovarian reserve after uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(1):197–8, Jul.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Jenkins JM. Could ovarian infection impair ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;105(3):252–3, Mar.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. El-Nemr A, Al-Shawaf T, Sabatini L, Wilson C, Lower AM, Grudzinskas JG. Effect of smoking on ovarian reserve and ovarian stimulation in in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1998;13(8):2192–8, Aug.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nargund G, Cheng WC, Parsons J. The impact of ovarian cystectomy on ovarian response to stimulation during in vitro fertilization cycles. Hum Reprod. 1995;11(1):81–3.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Casan EM, Bollina F. Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone stimulation in poor responders with normal basal concentrations of follicle stimulating hormone and oestradiol: improved reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1431–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Fratterelli JL, Bergh PA, Drews MR, Sharara FI, Scott RT. Evaluation of basal estradiol levels in assisted reproductive technology cycle (Part 2). Fertil Steril. 2000;74:518–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smotrich DB, Widra EA, Gindoff PR, Levy MJ, Hall JL, Stillman RJ. Prognostic value of day 3 estradiol on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:1110–36.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ng EH, Tang OS, Ho PC. The significance of the number of antral follicles prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian responses in an IVF programme. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1937–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Loumaye E, Billion JM, Mine JM, Psalti I, Pensis M, Thomas K. Prediction of individual response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation by means of a clomiphen citrate challenge test. Fertil Steril. 1990;53:295–301.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Scott RT, Leonardi MR, Hofmann GE, Illions EH, Neal GS, Navot D. A prospective evaluation of clomiphene citrate challenge test screening in the general infertility population. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;2:539–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Seifer DB, Lambert-Messerlian G, Hogan JW, Gardiner AC, Blazar AS, Berk CA. Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:110–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hughes EG, Robertson DM, Handlesman DJ, Hayward S, Healy DL, de Kretser DM. Inhibin and estradiol responses to ovarian hyperstimulation: effects of age and predictive value for in vitro fertilization outcome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1990;70:358–64.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Syrop CH, Willhoite A, Van Voorhis BJ. Ovarian volume: a novel outcome predictor for assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 1995;64:1167–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Akman MA, Erden HF, Tosun SB, Bayazit N, Aksoy E, Bahceci M. Comparison of agonistic flare-up-protocol and antagonistic multiple dose protocol in ovarian stimulation of poor responders: results of a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(5):868–70, May.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Fasouliotis SJ, Laufer N, Sabbagh-Ehrlich S, Lewin A, Hurwitz A, Simon A. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-antagonist versus GnRH-agonist in ovarian stimulation of poor responders undergoing IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20(11):455–60, Nov.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bassil S, Godin PA, Donnez J. Outcome of in-vitro fertilization through natural cycles in poor responders. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1262–5, May.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Morgia F, Sbracia M, Schimberni M, Giallonardo A, Piscitelli C, Giannini P, Aragona C. A controlled trial of natural cycle versus microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog flare cycles in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(6):1542–7, Jun.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, 100083, China

    X. M. Zhen, J. Qiao, R. Li, L. N. Wang & P. Liu

Authors
  1. X. M. Zhen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Qiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. L. N. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Qiao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zhen, X.M., Qiao, J., Li, R. et al. The clinical analysis of poor ovarian response in in-vitro-fertilization embryo-transfer among Chinese couples. J Assist Reprod Genet 25, 17–22 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-007-9187-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-007-9187-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation