The ovarian stimulation has been applied in order to increase the number of oocytes to compensate for the poor results of in vitro fertilization, allowing the selection of one or more embryos to be transferred. Our aim is to compare the results obtained in IVF/ICSI cycles using the short protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation to the results from the modified mild protocol used in our department. A total of 240 cycles were conducted from January 2010 to December 2011. When comparing both protocols, it could be observed that there was a significant difference in the quantity of gonadotropins doses in the mild protocol and in the short protocol. No significant difference was observed regarding pregnancy rates per cycle, 22% and 26.2%, in short and mild protocols, respectively. The protocols of controlled ovarian stimulation are often associated with high risk of complications such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, excessive emotional stress, high rates of treatment dropouts, and abdominal discomfort. With the data obtained in this study, one can conclude that there are less risks and complications for the patient when using the mild stimulation protocol. It was also observed that in this group there was a slightly higher rate. 1. Introduction Ovarian stimulation is a fundamental part of the technologies involving assisted reproduction. For over 30 years, ovarian stimulation has been applied in order to increase the number of oocytes to compensate for the inefficiency of the in vitro fertilization procedure (IVF), allowing the selection of one or more embryos to be transferred [1–3]. For many years the concept of number generosity of ovules was associated with the also generous number of embryos and directly related to the reproductive treatments prognosis. In parallel, the number of eggs recruited and the consequent number of resulting embryos contributed to increase the number of multiple pregnancies and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). However, the pregnancy rate did not rise as expected [4]. Likewise, previous studies indicate that the successful embryo implantation depends on an optimal communication between good quality embryos and a receptive endometrium [5]. In IVF the main reason for these poor results of implantation may be the endometrium quality which is affected during the pharmacological treatment (ovarian stimulation and hormone replacement) that is evidenced when comparing both implantation and pregnancy rates among natural cycles and IVF [6]. Recently, a stimulation protocol called mild stimulation
References
[1]
G. Borm and B. Mannaerts, “Treatment with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix in women undergoing ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective, safe and convenient: results of a controlled, randomized, multicentre trial,” Human Reproduction, vol. 15, pp. 1490–1498, 2000.
[2]
E. F. Branigan and M. A. Estes, “Minimal stimulation IVF using clomiphene citrate and oral contraceptive pill pretreatment for LH suppression,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 587–590, 2000.
[3]
B. C. Fauser, P. Devroey, S. S. Yen, et al., “Minimal ovarian stimulation for IVF: appraisal of potential benefits and drawbacks,” Human Reproduction, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 2681–2686, 1999.
[4]
P. Devroey, C. Bourgain, N. S. Macklon, and B. C. J. M. Fauser, “Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity,” Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 84–90, 2004.
[5]
R. H. Reindollar and M. B. Goldman, “Gonadotropin therapy: a 20th century relic,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 97, no. 4, pp. 813–818, 2012.
[6]
S. D. Keay, N. H. Liversedge, R. S. Mathur, and J. M. Jenkins, “Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation,” British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 104, no. 5, pp. 521–527, 1997.
[7]
C. A. Gemzell, P. Roos, and F. E. Loeffler, “Follicle stimulating hormone extracted from human pituitary,” in Progress in Infertility, S. J. Behrman and R. W. Kistner, Eds., pp. 479–493, Little, Brown and Company, Boston, Mass, USA, 1975.
[8]
R. Roberts, A. Iatropoulou, D. Ciantar et al., “Follicle-stimulating hormone affects metaphase I chromosome alignment and increases aneuploidy in mouse oocytes matured in vitro,” Biology of Reproduction, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 107–118, 2005.
[9]
C. Simon, F. Cano, D. Valbuena, J. Remohi, and A. Pellicer, “Clinical evidence for a detrimental effect on uterine receptivity of high serum oestradiol concentrations in high and normal responder patients,” Human Reproduction, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 2432–2437, 1995.
[10]
B. C. J. M. Fauser and A. M. Van Heusden, “Manipulation of human ovarian function: Physiological concepts and clinical consequences,” Endocrine Reviews, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 71–106, 1997.
[11]
E. A. McGee and A. J. W. Hsueh, “Initial and cyclic recruitment of ovarian follicles,” Endocrine Reviews, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 200–214, 2000.
[12]
M. J. Pelinck, N. E. A. Vogel, A. Hoek et al., “Cumulative pregnancy rates after three cycles of minimal stimulation IVF and results according to subfertility diagnosis: a multicentre cohort study,” Human Reproduction, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 2375–2383, 2006.
[13]
K. E. Hester, M. J. K. Harper, and D. M. Duffy, “Oral administration of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor meloxicam blocks ovulation in non-human primates when administered to simulate emergency contraception,” Human Reproduction, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 360–367, 2010.
[14]
B. C. J. M. Fauser and P. Devroey, “Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and luteal phase consequences,” Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 236–242, 2003.
[15]
J. J. Eppig, M. J. O'Brien, F. L. Pendola, and S. Watanabe, “Factors affecting the developmental competence of mouse oocytes grown in vitro: follicle-stimulating hormone and insulin,” Biology of Reproduction, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1445–1453, 1998.
[16]
P. Humaidan, L. Bungum, M. Bungum, and C. Y. Andersen, “Ovarian response and pregnancy outcome related to mid-follicular LH levels in women undergoing assisted reproduction with GnRH agonist down-regulation and recombinant FSH stimulation,” Human Reproduction, vol. 17, no. 8, pp. 2016–2021, 2002.
[17]
S. Munné, C. Magli, A. Adler et al., “Treatment-related chromosome abnormalities in human embryos,” Human Reproduction, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 780–784, 1997.
[18]
J. Van Blerkom and P. Davis, “Differential effects of repeated ovarian stimulation on cytoplasmic and spindle organization in metaphase II mouse oocytes matured in vivo and in vitro,” Human Reproduction, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 757–764, 2001.
[19]
T. Haaf, A. Hahn, A. Lambrecht et al., “A high oocyte yield for intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment is associated with an increased chromosome error rate,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 733–738, 2009.
[20]
T. M. Rijken-Zijlstra, M. L. Haadsma, C. Hammer et al., “Effectiveness of indometacin to prevent ovulation in modified natural-cycle IVF: a randomized controlled trial,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 27, pp. 297–304, 2013.
[21]
S. Athanasiou, T. H. Bourne, A. Khalid et al., “Effects of indomethacin on follicular structure, vascularity, and function over the periovulatory period in women,” Fertil. Steril, vol. 65, pp. 556–560, 1996.
[22]
I. J. Kadoch, M. Al-Khaduri, S. J. Phillips et al., “Spontaneous ovulation rate before oocyte retrieval in modified natural cycle IVF with and without indomethacin,” Reproductive BioMedicine, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 245–249, 2008.
[23]
E. B. Baart, E. Martini, M. J. Eijkemans et al., “Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial,” Human Reproduction, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 980–988, 2007.
[24]
K. Diedrich and R. Felberbaum, “New approaches to ovarian stimulation,” Human Reproduction, vol. 13, supplement 3, pp. 1–13, 1998.
[25]
M. G. Katz-Jaffe, A. O. Trounson, and D. S. Cram, “Chromosome 21 mosaic human preimplantation embryos predominantly arise from diploid conceptions,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 84, no. 3, pp. 634–643, 2005.
[26]
G. Nargund and R. Frydman, “Towards a more physiological approach to IVF,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 550–552, 2007.
[27]
F. Olivennes and R. Frydman, “Friendly IVF: the way of the future?” Human Reproduction, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1121–1124, 1998.
[28]
F. Olivennes, “GnRH antagonists: do they open new pathways to safer treatment in assisted reproductive techniques?” Reproductive Biomedicine Online, vol. 5, supplement 1, pp. 20–25, 2002.
[29]
G. Pennings and W. Ombelet, “Coming soon to your clinic: patient-friendly ART,” Human Reproduction, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 2075–2079, 2007.
[30]
F. M. Ubaldi, L. Rienzi, E. Baroni et al., “Hopes and facts about mild ovarian stimulation,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 675–681, 2007.
[31]
D. Kyrou, E. M. Kolibianakis, H. M. Fatemi et al., “Spontaneous triggering of ovulation versus HCG administration in patients undergoing IUI: a prospective randomized study,” Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 278–283, 2012.
[32]
N. Prapas, A. Tavaniotou, Y. Panagiotidis et al., “Low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin during the proliferative phase may adversely affect endometrial receptivity in oocyte recipients,” Gynecological Endocrinology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 53–59, 2009.
[33]
B. S. Shapiro, S. T. Daneshmand, F. C. Garner, M. Aguirre, C. Hudson, and S. Thomas, “Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 344–348, 2011.
[34]
A. Bermejo, C. Iglesias, M. Ruiz-Alonso et al., “The impact of using the combined oral contraceptive pill for cycle scheduling on gene expression related to endometrial receptivity,” Human Reproduction, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 1271–1278, 2014.
[35]
N. G. M. Beckers, P. Platteau, M. J. Eijkemans et al., “The early luteal phase administration of estrogen and progesterone does not induce premature luteolysis in normo-ovulatory women,” European Journal of Endocrinology, vol. 155, no. 2, pp. 355–363, 2006.
[36]
D. Valbuena, J. Martin, J. L. De Pablo, J. Remohí, A. Pellicer, and C. Simón, “Increasing levels of estradiol are deleterious to embryonic implantation because they directly affect the embryo,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 962–968, 2001.
[37]
R. J. Paulson, M. V. Sauer, and R. A. Lobo, “Embryo implantation after human in vitro fertilization: importance of endometrial receptivity,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 870–874, 1990.
[38]
E. G. Papanikolaou, G. Pados, G. Grimbizis et al., “GnRH-agonist versus GnRH-antagonist IVF cycles: Is the reproductive outcome affected by the incidence of progesterone elevation on the day of HCG triggering? A randomized prospective study,” Human Reproduction, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 1822–1828, 2012.
[39]
A. M. Elnashar, “Progesterone rise on the day of HCG administration (premature luteinization) in IVF: an overdue update,” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 149–155, 2010.
[40]
W. Schoolcraft, E. Sinton, T. Schlenker, D. Huynh, F. Hamilton, and D. R. Meldrum, “Lower pregnancy rate with premature luteinization during pituitary suppression with leuprolide acetate,” Fertility and Sterility, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 563–566, 1991.
[41]
K. M. Silverberg, W. N. Burns, D. L. Olive, R. M. Riehl, and R. S. Schenken, “Serum progesterone levels predict success of in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer in patients stimulated with leuprolide acetate and human menopausal gonadotropins,” Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 797–803, 1991.
