Future ovarian stimulation strategies should avoid maximizing oocyte yield, but aim at generating a sufficient number of chromosomally normal embryos by reduced interference with ovarian physiology.
STUDY QUESTION
Do cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) over multiple IVF/ICSI cycles confirm the low prognosis in women stratified according to the POSEIDON criteria?
SUMMARY ANSWER
The CLBR of low-prognosis women is ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment and varies between the POSEIDON groups, which is primarily attributable to the impact of female age.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
The POSEIDON group recently proposed a new stratification for low-prognosis women in IVF/ICSI treatment, with the aim to define more homogenous populations for clinical trials and stimulate a patient-tailored therapeutic approach. These new criteria combine qualitative and quantitative parameters to create four groups of low-prognosis women with supposedly similar biologic characteristics.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
This study analyzed the data of a Dutch multicenter observational cohort study including 551 low-prognosis women, aged <44 years, who initiated IVF/ICSI treatment between 2011 and 2014 and were treated with a fixed FSH dose of 150 IU/day in the first treatment cycle.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Low-prognosis women were categorized into one of the POSEIDON groups based on their age (younger or older than 35 years), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level (above or below 0.96 ng/ml), and the ovarian response (poor or suboptimal) in their first cycle of standard stimulation. The primary outcome was the CLBR over multiple complete IVF/ICSI cycles, including all subsequent fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers, within 18 months of treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were obtained using an optimistic and a conservative analytic approach.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
The CLBR of the low-prognosis women was on average ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment. Younger unexpected poor (
n
= 38) and suboptimal (
n
= 179) responders had a CLBR of ~65% and ~68%, respectively, and younger expected poor responders (
n
= 65) had a CLBR of ~59%. The CLBR of older unexpected poor (
n
= 41) and suboptimal responders (
n
= 102) was ~42% and ~54%, respectively, and of older expected poor responders (
n
= 126) ~39%. For comparison, the CLBR of younger (
n
= 164) and older (
n
= 78) normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve was ~72% and ~58% over 18 months of treatment, respectively. No large differences were observed in the number of fresh treatment cycles between the POSEIDON groups, with an average of two fresh cycles per woman within 18 months of follow-up.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
Small numbers in some (sub)groups reduced the precision of the estimates. However, our findings provide the f...
Prenatal cytogenetic analysis of 71 fetuses conceived by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) resulted in the detection of nine (12.7%) chromosome aberrations including two cases of 47,XXY, four cases involving a 45,X cell line and three autosomal trisomies. Molecular analysis of the parental origin of the deleted or supernumerary chromosome was performed by using polymorphic microsatellite markers. Six cases involving a sex chromosome abnormality were found to be of paternal origin while the two trisomic cases that could be analysed were of maternal origin. Two cases involved the same infertile couple who had two consecutive ICSI pregnancies terminated because of a chromosome abnormality. The replaced embryos in both cases originated from a single batch of ICSI fertilized oocytes of which part was used to initiate the first pregnancy and part was cryopreserved and used to initiate the second pregnancy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.