Paniagua NCA, Barros DJC, Muñoz MC, Barrientos GE

Language: Spanish
References: 17
Page: 464-475
PDF size: 224.65 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine whether elevated basal FSH concentrations relative to normal limits can predict ovarian response.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent assisted reproductive techniques (IVF-ICSI) between January 2020 and December 2023 at the Assisted Reproduction Unit of the Instituto Nacional de Perinatología. The ovarian stimulation response according to basal FSH concentrations (≤7.5 vs. ›7.5-12 mIU/mL) was evaluated by logistic regression and multivariate analysis to determine the probability of low response and suboptimal responce.
Results: Data from 292 cycles were analyzed, of which 26.7% (n = 78) were cycles. The probability of retrieving less than 4 oocytes (low) and between 4 and 9 oocytes (suboptimal response) was significant in patients with basal FSH ›7.5 mUI/mL independent of the ovarian reserve markers. The probability of suboptimal response (less than 9 oocytes retrieved) was significantly higher with baseline FSH concentrations ›7.5 mIU/mL in patients with normal ovarian reserve markers and after adjusting for age and BMI, the probability remains. The odds of a low response (less than 4 oocytes) was higher, but not significant. In patients with reduced ovarian reserve, the probability of low or suboptimal response was not significant with basal FSH ≤7.5 vs. ›7.5 mIU/mL.
Conclusion: Elevated basal FSH concentrations within normal limits (›7.5-12 mIU/ mL) are associated with low and suboptimal ovarian response in IVF-ICSI cycles, even in the presence of normal ovarian reserve markers.

REFERENCES

1. Tsakos E, Tolikas A, Daniilidis A, Asimakopoulos B. Predictivevalue of anti-müllerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormoneand antral follicle count on the outcome of ovarianstimulation in women following GnRH-antagonist protocolfor IVF/ET. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 290 (6): 1249-53.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3332-3

2. Del Gallego R, Lawrenz B, Ata B, et al. The association of“normal” early follicular FSH levels with unexpected pooror suboptimal response when other markers of ovarian reserveare reassuring. A retrospective cohort study. ReprodBio Med 2023; 48 (3):103701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103701

3. Miller CM, Melikian REM, Jones TL, et al. Follicle StimulatingHormone (FSH) as a predictor of decreased oocyte yieldin patients with normal anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH) andantral follicle count (CFA). J Reprod Infertil 2023; 24 (3):181-87. https://doi.org/10.18502/jri.v24i3.13274

4. Shahrokh TE, Mehrabi F, Taati R, et al. Analysis of ovarianreserve markers (AMH, FSH, CFA) in different age strata inIVF/ICSI patients. Int J Reprod Biomed 2016; 14 (8): 501-6.

5. Ribeiro S, Sousa M. In vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmicsperm injection predictive factors: a review of theeffect of female age, ovarian reserve, male age, and malefactor on IVF/ICSI treatment outcomes. JBRA 2023; 27 (1):97-111. https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20220000

6. Buratini J, Dellaqua TT, Dal Canto M, et al. The putative rolesof FSH and AMH in the regulation of oocyte developmentalcompetence: from fertility prognosis to mechanismsunderlying age-related subfertility. Hum Reprod Update2022; 28 (2): 2022232-254. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmab044

7. Ata B. Why ovarian stimulation should be aimed tomaximize oocyte yield. Reprod Biomed Online 2023; 23:S1472-6483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.01.016

8. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, et al. Associationbetween the number of eggs and live birth in IVFtreatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. HumReprod 2011; 26 (7): 1768-74. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der106

9. Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, et al. Conventionalovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulativelive birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozenembryos? Hum Reprod 2016; 31 (2): 370-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev316

10. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlledovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers:from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20 (1):124-40. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt037

11. Penzias A, Azziz R, Bendikson K, et al. Testing and interpretingmeasures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion.Fertil Steril 2020; 114: 1151-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.134

12. Esteves SC, Yarali H, Vuong, et al. Antral follicle count andantiMüllerian hormone to classify low-prognosis womenunder the POSEIDON criteria: a classification agreementstudy of over 9000 patients. Hum Reprod 2021: 36: 1530-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab056

13. Fasouliotis SJ, Simon A, Laufer N. Evaluation and treatmentof low responders in assisted reproductive technology: achallenge to meet. J Assist Reprod Genet 2000; 17: 357-73.https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009465324197

14. Ilgaz NS, Aydos OSE, Karadag A, et al. Impact of folliclestimulatinghormone receptor variants in female infertility.J Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32: 1659-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0572-5

15. Sun PP, Zhang YM, Zhu HY, et al. The relationship betweenserum FSH level and ovarian response during controlledovarian stimulation. Ginekol Pol 2023; 94 (6): 470-75.https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2022.0010

16. Weghofer A, Margreiter M, Fauster Y, et al. Age-specificFSH levels as a tool for appropriate patient counselling inassisted reproduction. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (9): 2448-52.https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dei076

17. Barad DH, Weghofer A, Gleicher N. Age-specific levels forbasal follicle-stimulating hormone assessment of ovarianfunction. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (6):1404-10. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000264065.37661.a0