Abstract
Introduction
The objective of this study was to determine whether ovarian reserve markers can predict ovarian response in women undergoing their first cycle of assisted reproduction.
Materials and methods
This prospective observational study included 292 infertile patients undergoing their first IVF trial in the Assisted Reproductive Unit in a tertiary care hospital. Day 2 follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC) and ovarian volume was measured before commencement of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. The main outcome measures were oocytes retrieved and this was correlated with ovarian reserve markers.
Results
The mean age was 31.8 (±4.4) years and mean duration of infertility 8.2 (±3.9) years. The correlation between oocytes retrieved and age, day 2 FSH, Inhibin B, AMH, AFC and volume of the ovary was calculated. A negative correlation was found with age (r = −0.22, p < 0.001) and day 2 FSH (r = −0.35, p < 0.001). A positive correlation was seen with AMH (r = 0.15, p = 0.022), AFC (r = 0.48, p < 0.05) and volume (r = 0.17, p = 0.009). In the bivariate analysis, 1 year increase in age was found to decrease the oocytes retrieved count by 0.37 with a significant p value. The independent significant factors found in multiple linear regression analysis were day 2 FSH and AFC.
Discussion
The present study concludes that day 2 FSH and AFC are promising biomarkers for ovarian reserve in predicting ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation in IVF patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Astolfi P, Ulizzi L, Zonta LA (1999) Selective cost of delayed childbearing. Hum Reprod 14:572–573
Johnson NP, Bagrie EM, Coomarasamy A, Bhattacharya S, Shelling AN, Jessop S, Farquhar C, Khan KS (2006) Ovarian reserve tests for predicting fertility outcomes for assisted reproductive technology: the international systematic collaboration of ovarian reserve evaluation protocol for a systematic review of ovarian reserve test accuracy. BJOG 113:1472–1480
Coccia ME, Rizzello F (2008) Ovarian reserve. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1127:27–30 (Review)
Arslan M, Bocca S, Mirkin S, Barroso G, Stadtmauer L, Oehninger S (2005) Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization: two decades of experience after the birth of Elizabeth Carr. Fertil Steril 84:555–569
Akande VA, Fleming CF, Hunt LP, Keay SD, Jenkins JM (2002) Biological versus chronological ageing of oocytes, distinguishable by raised FSH levels in relation to the success of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 17:2003–2008
Sauer MV (1998) The impact of age on reproductive potential: lessons learned from oocyte donation. Maturitas 30:221–225
Nikolaou D, Templeton A (2003) Early ovarian ageing: a hypothesis. Detection and clinical relevance. Hum Reprod 18:1137–1139
Lambalk CB, van Disseldorp J, de Koning CH, Broekmans FJ (2009) Testing ovarian reserve to predict age at menopause. Maturitas 63:280–291
Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L (2011) ESHRE working group on poor ovarian response definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 26(7):1616–1624
Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS, Jenkins JM (1997) Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:521–527
Mcllveen M, Skull JD, Ledger WL (2007) Evaluation of the utility of multiple endocrine and ultrasound measures of ovarian reserve in the prediction of cycle cancellation in a high-risk IVF population. Hum Reprod 22:778–785
Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H, Jamieson M, Traynor I, Gaudoin M, Mitchell P, Ambrose P, Fleming R (2009) Anti-Mullerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod 24:867–875
Mathur R, Kailasam C, Jenkins J (2007) Review of the evidence base of strategies to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Fertil 10:75–85
Faddy MJ, Gosden RG (1995) A mathematical model of follicle dynamics in the human ovary. Hum Reprod 10:770–775
Muttukrishna S, McGarrigle H, Wakim R, Khadum I, Ranieri DM, Serhal P (2005) Antral follicle count, anti-Mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology? BJOG 112:1384–1390
Lorusso F, Vicino M, Lamanna G, Trerotoli P, Serio G, Depalo R (2007) Performance of different ovarian reserve markers for predicting the number of oocytes retrieved and mature oocytes. Maturitas 56(4):429–435
Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB (2006) A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 12:685–718
Fanchin R, Schonauer LM, Righini C, Frydman N, Frydman R, Taieb J (2003) Serum anti-Mullerian hormone dynamics during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod 18:328–332
Behringer RR, Finegold MJ, Cate RL (1994) Mullerian-inhibiting substance function during mammalian sexual development. Cell 79:415–425
Weenen C, Laven JS, Von Bergh AR, Cranfield M, Groome NP, Visser JA et al (2004) Anti-Mullerian hormone expression pattern in the human ovary: potential implications for initial and cyclic follicle recruitment. Mol Hum Reprod 10:77–83
Van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, Scheffer GJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, de Jong FH et al (2005) Serum antimullerian hormone levels best reflect the reproductive decline with age in normal women with proven fertility: a longitudinal study. Fertil Steril 83:979–987
Van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Bancsi LF, de Jong FH et al (2002) Serum anti Mullerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 17:3065–3071
La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, Volpe A (2006) Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod 21:3103–3107
Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N (2010) A prospective, comparative analysis of anti-Mullerian hormone, inhibin-B, and three-dimensional ultrasound determinants of ovarian reserve in the prediction of poor response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 93(3):855–864
La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, Stabile G, Volpe A (2010) Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update 16(2):113–130
Anckaert E, Smitz J, Schiettecatte J, Klein BM, Arce J-C (2012) The value of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in the long GnRH agonist protocol: association with ovarian response and gonadotrophin-dose adjustments. Hum Reprod 27:1829–1839
Yates AP, Rustamov O, Roberts SA, Lim HY, Pemberton PW, Smith A, Nardo LG (2011) Anti-Mullerian hormone-tailored stimulation protocols improve outcomes whilst reducing adverse effects and costs of IVF. Hum Reprod 26(9):2353–2362
Hendriks DJ, Kwee J, Mol BW, te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ (2007) Ultrasonography as a tool for the prediction of outcome in IVF patients: a comparative meta-analysis of ovarian volume and antral follicle count. Fertil Steril 87:764–775
Acknowledgments
The authors have not received any financial support for this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors do not have any conflict of interest.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Singh, N., Bahadur, A., Malhotra, N. et al. Prospective analysis of ovarian reserve markers as determinant in response to controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing IVF cycles in low resource setting in India. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288, 697–703 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2802-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2802-3