Advertisement

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 36, Issue 10, pp 2087–2094 | Cite as

Ovarian stimulation and egg retrieval in the acutely ill patient: special considerations

  • Kaitlyn WaldEmail author
  • Joseph Letourneau
  • Rachel Eshima-McKay
  • John Monks
  • Evelyn Mok-Lin
  • Marcelle Cedars
  • Mitchell Rosen
Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • 93 Downloads

Introduction

Over the past decades, assisted reproductive care has become increasingly safe and more widely applied. Egg retrieval has become an outpatient procedure, with ultrasound guidance, and stimulations have increasingly become less aggressive and safer with more individualization and safer trigger options. With this improvement in care, these treatments are considered low risk and applied more widely, including fertility preservation for elective reasons (so-called social egg freezing). However, it is incumbent upon providers to realize the application of even “simple” treatments, in a high-risk population, may have serious consequences.

As long-term survival rates have improved among patients diagnosed with cancer and life-threatening disease, and with these improved survival rates, post-treatment quality of life has gained increased attention [1]. Among this growing population with life-threatening illness and greater survival expectation are women of reproductive age, and...

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Centers for Disease Control. A national action plan for cancer survivorship: advancing public health strategies. 2004 12/20/2018]; Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/survivors/pdf/plan.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. Cancer statistics and review 1975–2015. [cited 2018; Available from: http://www.seer.cancer.gov.
  3. 3.
    Letourneau JM, Ebbel EE, Katz PP, Katz A, Ai WZ, Chien AJ, et al. Pretreatment fertility counseling and fertility preservation improve quality of life in reproductive age women with cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(6):1710–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address, A.a.o., Fertility preservation and reproduction in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies: an Ethics Committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2018. 110(3): p. 380–386.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Anazodo A, Ataman-Millhouse L, Jayasinghe Y, Woodruff TK. Oncofertility-an emerging discipline rather than a special consideration. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2018;65(11):e27297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ataman LM, Ma Y, Duncan FE, Uzzi B, Woodruff TK. Quantifying the growth of oncofertility. Biol Reprod. 2018;99(2):263–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Letourneau JM, Sinha N, Wald K, Harris E, Quinn M, Imbar T, et al. Random start ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation appears unlikely to delay initiation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(10):2123–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pecker LH, Maher JY, Law JY, Beach MC, Lanzkron S, Christianson MS. Risks associated with fertility preservation for women with sickle cell anemia. Fertil Steril. 2018;110(4):720–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferschl MB, Tung A, Sweitzer BJ, Huo D, Glick DB. Preoperative clinic visits reduce operating room cancellations and delays. Anesthesiology. 2005;103(4):855–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reilly DF, McNeely MJ, Doerner D, Greenberg DL, Staiger TO, Geist MJ, et al. Self-reported exercise tolerance and the risk of serious perioperative complications. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(18):2185–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Subramani Y, Wong J, Nagappa M, Chung F. The benefits of perioperative screening for sleep apnea in surgical patients. Sleep Med Clin. 2017;12(1):123–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cartagena R. Preoperative evaluation of patients with obesity and obstructive sleep apnea. Anesthesiol Clin North Am. 2005;23(3):463–78 vi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Subramani Y, Nagappa M, Wong J, Mubashir T, Chung F. Preoperative evaluation: estimation of pulmonary risk including obstructive sleep apnea impact. Anesthesiol Clin. 2018;36(4):523–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Devereaux PJ, Sessler DI. Cardiac complications in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(23):2258–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bechard P, et al. Perioperative cardiorespiratory complications in adults with mediastinal mass: incidence and risk factors. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(4):826–34; discussion 5A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grocott HP, Gulati H, Srinathan S, Mackensen GB. Anesthesia and the patient with pericardial disease. Can J Anaesth. 2011;58(10):952–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Goh MH, Liu XY, Goh YS. Anterior mediastinal masses: an anaesthetic challenge. Anaesthesia. 1999;54(7):670–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graetz T, N.D. Perioperative strategies to reduce bleeding and minimize transfusions. UpToDate. 2018; Available from: http://www.uptodate.com.
  19. 19.
    McCullough J. Overview of platelet transfusion. Semin Hematol. 2010;47(3):235–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carson JL, Guyatt G, Heddle NM, Grossman BJ, Cohn CS, Fung MK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines from the AABB red blood cell transfusion thresholds and storage. Jama-J Am Med Assoc. 2016;316(19):2025–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ye R, et al. Timing embryo preservation for a patient with high-risk newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia. Case Rep Hematol. 2018;2018:9807047.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meirow D, Epstein M, Lewis H, Nugent D, Gosden RG. Administration of cyclophosphamide at different stages of follicular maturation in mice: effects on reproductive performance and fetal malformations. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(4):632–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brunicardi FC, et al. Schwartz’s principles of surgery. Tenth ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2014.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Howard SC, Jones DP, Pui CH. The tumor lysis syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(19):1844–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Howard SC, Trifilio S, Gregory TK, Baxter N, McBride A. Tumor lysis syndrome in the era of novel and targeted agents in patients with hematologic malignancies: a systematic review. Ann Hematol. 2016;95(4):563–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Vormittag R, Simanek R, Ay C, Dunkler D, Quehenberger P, Marosi C, et al. High factor VIII levels independently predict venous thromboembolism in cancer patients: the cancer and thrombosis study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2009;29(12):2176–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Walker AJ, Card TR, West J, Crooks C, Grainge MJ. Incidence of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer - a cohort study using linked United Kingdom databases. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1404–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mahajan A, et al. The epidemiology of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism: an update. Semin Thromb Hemost. 2019.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chan WS. The ‘ART’ of thrombosis: a review of arterial and venous thrombosis in assisted reproductive technology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2009;21(3):207–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rova K, Passmark H, Lindqvist PG. Venous thromboembolism in relation to in vitro fertilization: an approach to determining the incidence and increase in risk in successful cycles. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(1):95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bates SM, Middeldorp S, Rodger M, James AH, Greer I. Guidance for the treatment and prevention of obstetric-associated venous thromboembolism. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;41(1):92–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Gurunath S, Vinekar S, Biliangady R. Assisted reproductive techniques in a patient with history of venous thromboembolism: a case report and review of literature. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2018;11(2):193–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Somigliana E, Peccatori FA, Filippi F, Martinelli F, Raspagliesi F, Martinelli I. Risk of thrombosis in women with malignancies undergoing ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(6):944–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address, A.a.o. and M. Practice Committee of the American Society for reproductive, prevention and treatment of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a guideline. Fertil Steril, 2016. 106(7): p. 1634–1647.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goldsman MP, Pedram A, Dominguez CE, Ciuffardi I, Levin E, Asch RH. Increased capillary permeability induced by human follicular fluid: a hypothesis for an ovarian origin of the hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril. 1995;63(2):268–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Namavar Jahromi BM, et al. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a narrative review of its pathophysiology, risk factors, prevention, classification, and management. Iran J Med Sci. 2018;43(3):248–60.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Claesson-Welsh L. Vascular permeability--the essentials. Ups J Med Sci. 2015;120(3):135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Toftager M, Bogstad J, Bryndorf T, Løssl K, Roskær J, Holland T, et al. Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(6):1253–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Youssef MA, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (2011, 1):CD008046.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Anaya Y, Mata DA, Letourneau J, Cakmak H, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. A novel oocyte maturation trigger using 1500 IU of human chorionic gonadotropin plus 450 IU of follicle-stimulating hormone may decrease ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome across all in vitro fertilization stimulation protocols (vol 35, pg 297, 2017). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(2):309–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive SciencesUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.University of Utah Center for Reproductive MedicineSalt Lake CityUSA
  3. 3.Department of AnesthesiaUniversity of California, San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations