Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 288, Issue 4, pp 901–904 | Cite as

Initiation of ovarian stimulation independent of the menstrual cycle: a case–control study

  • Nana Kristin Buendgen
  • Askan Schultze-Mosgau
  • Tim Cordes
  • Klaus Diedrich
  • Georg GriesingerEmail author
Reproductive Medicine



In the GnRH-antagonist protocol, ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins typically commences on cycle day 2 or 3. Initiation of ovarian stimulation with a spontaneously occurring menstruation, however, poses significant organizational challenges for treatment centres and patients alike. It has previously been demonstrated in the context of fertility preservation that initiation of stimulation in the luteal phase is feasible in terms of retrieval of mature oocytes for cryopreservation. Herein, we report the extension of this concept to a routine IVF setting with the aim of establishing an ovarian stimulation protocol, which can be utilized independent of menstruation. Because of asynchrony of endometrium and embryo in such a setting, all fertilized oocytes have to be cryopreserved for a later transfer.


This was a prospective, case–control study (trial registration: NCT00795041) on the feasibility of starting ovarian stimulation in a GnRH-antagonist protocol in the luteal phase. Inclusion criteria were: IVF or ICSI; 18–36 years; ≤3 previous IVF/ICSI attempts; BMI 20–30 kg/m2; regular cycle (28–35 days); luteal phase progesterone >7 ng/ml at initiation of stimulation. Exclusion criteria were: PCOS, endometriosis ≥AFS III°, unilateral ovary, expected poor response. Stimulation was performed with highly purified uFSH (Bravelle®) 300 IU/day and 0.25 mg/day GnRH-antagonist starting on cycle day 19–21 of a spontaneous menstrual cycle and commencing until hCG administration when three follicles ≥17 mm were present. All 2PN stage oocytes were vitrified for later transfers in programmed cycles. Feasibility was defined as the achievement of ongoing pregnancies progressing beyond the 12th gestational week in at least 2/10 study subjects (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were gonadotropin consumption per oocyte obtained, stimulation duration, and fertilization rates. Study subjects were matched in a 1:3 ratio with concomitantly treated control cases of similar age, BMI, and duration of infertility who were treated in a conventional GnRH-antagonist protocol with 150–225 rFSH or HP-HMG/day.


The study group consisted of ten subjects, mean age 31.4 years, BMI 25.4 kg/m2, of which one had fertilization failure. Mean stimulation duration was 11.7 (SD 1.6) vs. 9.1 (SD 1.3) days, mean cumulative FSH dose was 3,495.0 (SD 447.5) vs. 2,040.5 (SD 576.2) IU, and mean number of oocytes was 8.8 (SD 5.0) vs. 10.0 (SD 5.4) in study vs. control group, respectively. Per follicle ≥10 mm, the cumulative FSH dose was 274.5 (SD 130.8) IU vs. 245.2 (SD 232.3) IU in study and control groups, respectively. Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates were 1/10 (10 %) and 6/30 (20.0 %) in study and control group, respectively (difference: 10 %, 95 % confidence interval of the difference: −29.2–22.2 %, p = 0.47). Fertilization rate was similar between groups, with 63.5 % (SD 32.9) in the study and 61.3 % (SD 26.7) in the control group, respectively. Serum estradiol levels were significantly lower on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation with 1,005.3 (SD 336.2) vs. 1,977.4 pg/ml (SD 1,106.5) in study and control group, respectively. Similarly, peak estradiol biosynthesis per growing follicle ≥10 mm was lower in the study group (134 pg/ml, SD 158.4 vs. 186.7 pg/ml, SD 84.7).


Per retrieved oocyte, a nearly threefold higher dose of FSH had to be administered when ovarian stimulation had been initiated in the luteal phase. Furthermore, the present study casts doubt on the efficacy of initiating ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase in terms of pregnancy achievement. Thus, this concept is currently not feasible for routine use, and it should also be explored further before using it at larger scale in the context of emergency stimulation for fertility preservation.


Ovarian stimulation Luteal phase In vitro fertilization GnRH-antagonist Fertility preservation 



The study was supported by an unrestricted educational grant of Ferring Arzneimittel GmbH, Germany.

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Diedrich K, Diedrich C, Santos E, Zoll C, al-Hasani S, Reissmann T et al (1994) Suppression of the endogenous luteinizing hormone surge by the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist Cetrorelix during ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 9:788–791 (Oxford, England)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Griesinger G, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis C, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis B (2010) Oral contraceptive pretreatment significantly reduces ongoing pregnancy likelihood in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: an updated meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 94:2382–2384PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hohmann FP, Macklon NS, Fauser BC (2003) A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 88:166–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blockeel C, Sterrenburg MD, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, Smitz J, Devroey P et al (2011) Follicular phase endocrine characteristics during ovarian stimulation and GnRH antagonist cotreatment for IVF: RCT comparing recFSH initiated on cycle day 2 or 5. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96:1122–1128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    von Wolff M, Thaler CJ, Frambach T, Zeeb C, Lawrenz B, Popovici RM et al (2009) Ovarian stimulation to cryopreserve fertilized oocytes in cancer patients can be started in the luteal phase. Fertil Steril 92:1360–1365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sonmezer M, Turkcuoglu I, Coskun U, Oktay K (2011) Random-start controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for emergency fertility preservation in letrozole cycles. Fertil Steril 95(6):2125.e9–2125.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kuwayama M, Vajta G, Kato O, Leibo SP (2005) Highly efficient vitrification method for cryopreservation of human oocytes. Reprod Biomed Online 11:300–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bals-Pratsch M, Al-Hasani S, Schopper B, Diedrich C, Hoepfner AS, Weiss J et al (1999) A simple, inexpensive and effective artificial cycle with exogenous transdermal oestradiol and vaginal progesterone for the transfer of cryopreserved pronucleated human oocytes in women with normal cycles. Hum Reprod 14(Suppl 1):222–230 (Oxford, England)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC (2009) Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: which one is better? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 21:270–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Russell DL, Robker RL (2007) Molecular mechanisms of ovulation: co-ordination through the cumulus complex. Hum Reprod Updat 13:289–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nilsson L, Andersen AN, Lindenberg S, Hausken J, Andersen CY, Kahn JA (2010) Ganirelix for luteolysis in poor responder patients undergoing IVF treatment: a Scandinavian multicenter ‘extended pilot study’. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 89(6):828–831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fridén BE, Nilsson L (2005) Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone-antagonist luteolysis during the preceding mid-luteal phase is a feasible protocol in ovarian hyperstimulation before in vitro fertilization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 84(8):812–816PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nana Kristin Buendgen
    • 1
  • Askan Schultze-Mosgau
    • 1
  • Tim Cordes
    • 1
  • Klaus Diedrich
    • 1
  • Georg Griesinger
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Reproductive Medicine and EndocrinologyUniversity Hospital of Schleswig–HolsteinLuebeckGermany

Personalised recommendations