Advertisement

Correlation of serum Anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations on day 3 of the in vitro fertilization stimulation cycle with assisted reproduction outcome in polycystic ovary syndrome patients

  • Wenyan Xi
  • Fei Gong
  • Guangxiu LuEmail author
ASSISTED REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether serum Anti- Müllerian hormone (AMH) on day 3 could predict controlled ovarian stimulation and reproductive outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Methods

A total of 164 PCOS patients undergoing their first IVF treatment cycle were prospectively included. Serum AMH levels on cycle day 3 was measured. The controlled ovarian stimulation and clinical outcomes for the study population were divided according to the <25th, 25 to 75th, or >75th percentile of serum day-3 AMH.

Results

Estradiol levels on hCG day and the number of retrieved oocytes significantly increased with increasing serum AMH levels, while total consumption of gonadotropin dose showed a significant decrease (P < 0.05). Fertilization rate and the number of good quality embryos were comparable among the low, average and high groups (P > 0.05). Embryo implantation rates in the high AMH group was significantly inferior to those with low and average AMH concentration (27 versus 48.8 and 50%, P < 0.01). Clinical pregnancy rates was lower in the high AMH group than that of the low and average group (45.9 versus 65 and 66.7%, P = 0.09), but this difference was only close to statistical significance. In addition, ordinal regression analysis indicated that LH level was the only independent predictor of embryo implantation rates (P = 0.017).

Conclusions

In PCOS women, AMH levels on day 3 of the IVF stimulation cycle positively predict ovarian response to gonadotrophins. However, the women with high AMH levels had a significantly decreased IR, which may be due to remarkably increased LH concentrations.

Keywords

Anti-Müllerian hormone Assisted reproduction Polycystic ovary syndrome Serum AMH 

References

  1. 1.
    Van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, Te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Bancsi LF, De Jong FH, et al. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3065–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook CL, Siow Y, Brenner AG, Fallat ME. Relationship between serum Mullerian-inhibiting substance and other reproductive hormones in untreated women with polycystic ovary syndrome and normal women. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:141–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Laven JS, Mulders AG, Visser JA, Themmen AP, Jong FH, Fauser BC. Anti-Mullerian hormone serum concentrations in normovulatory and anovulatory women of reproductive age. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2004;89:318–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Norman RJ, Dewailly D, Legro RS, Hickey TE. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Lancet. 2007;370:685–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pigny P, Jonard S, Robert Y, Dewailly D. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone as a surrogate for antral follicle count for definition of the polycystic ovary syndrome. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91:941–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pigny P, Merlen E, Robert Y, Cortet-Rudelli C, Decanter C, Jonard S, et al. Elevated serum level of anti-mullerian hormone in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: relationship to the ovarian follicle excess and to the follicular arrest. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003;88:5957–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Das M, Gillott DJ, Saridogan E, Djahanbakhch O. Anti-Mullerian hormone is increased in follicular fluid from unstimulated ovaries in women with polycystic ovary sundrome. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2122–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    La Marca A, Orvieto R, Giulini S, Jasonni VM, Volpe A, De Leo V. Mullerian-inhibiting substance in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: relationship with hormonal and metabolic characteristics. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:970–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Piouka A, Farmakiotis D, Katsikis I, Macut D, Gerou S, Panidis D. Anti-Mullerian hormone levels reflect severity of PCOS but are negatively influenced by obesity: relationship with increased luteinizing hormone levels. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2009;296:238–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nardo LG, Yates AP, Roberts SA, Pemberton P, Laing I. The relationships between AMH, androgens, insulin resistance and basa ovarian follicular status in non-obese subfertile women with and without polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:2917–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fleming R, Deshpande N, Traynor I, Yates RW. Dynamics of FSH-induced follicular growth in subfertile women: relationship with age, insulin resistance, oocyte yield and anti-Mullerian hormone. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:1436–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ. The role of anti-Mullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:705–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elgindy EA, El-Haieg DO, El-Sebaey A. Anti-Mullerian hormone: correlation of early follicular, ovulatory and midluteal levels with ovarian response and cycle outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1670–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lekamge DN, Barry M, Kolo M, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Anti-Mullerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:602–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hazout A, Bouchard P, Seifer DB, Aussage P. Serum antimullerian hormone/mullerian-inhibiting substance appears to be a more discriminatory marker of assisted reproductive technology outcome than follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, or estradiol. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:1323–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eldar-Geva T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinovitz R, Markovitz E, Mimoni T, et al. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3178–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM–Sponsored PCOS Consensus Workshop Group. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term healthy risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2004;82 Suppl 3:1193–7.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Muttukrishna S, McGarrigle H, Wakim R, Khadum I, Ranieri DM, Serhal P. Antral follicle count, anti-Mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112:1384–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gnoth C, Schuring AN, Friol K, Tigges J, Mallmann P, Godehardt E. Relevance of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in a routine IVF program. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1359–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Grossman MP, Nakajima ST, Fallat ME, Siow Y. Müllerian-inhibiting substance inhibits cytochrome P450 aromatase activity in human granulosa lutein cell culture. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1364–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaya C, Pabuccu R, Satıroglu H. Serum antimullerian hormone concentrations on day 3 of the in vitro fertilization stimulation cycle are predictive of the fertilization, implantation, and pregnancy in polycystic ovary syndrome patients undergoing assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2202–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fanchin R, Schonauer LM, Righini C, Frydman N, Frydman R, Taieb J. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone dynamics during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:328–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    La Marca A, Malmusi S, Giulini S, Tamaro LF, Orvieto R, Levratti P, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone plasma levels in spontaneous menstrual cycle and during treatment with FSH to induce ovulation. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2738–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Silberstein T, MacLaughlin DT, Shai I, Trimarchi JR, Lambert-Messerlian G, Seifer DB, et al. Mullerian inhibiting substance levels at the time of HCG administration in IVF cycles predict both ovarian reserve and embryo morphology. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:159–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Der Spuy ZM, Dyer SJ. The pathogenesis of infertility and early pregnancy loss in polycystic ovary syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;18:755–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tesarik J. Effects of LH on oocyte yield and developmental competence. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1358–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Franks S, Stark J, Hardy K. Follicle dynamics and anovulation in polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14:367–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dumesic DA, Schramm RD, Peterson E, Paprocki AM, Zhou R, Abbott DH. Impaired developmental competence of oocytes in adult prenatally androgenized female rhesus monkeys undergoing gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2002;87:1111–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Santos MA, Kuijk EW, Macklon NS. The impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the developing embryo. Reproduction. 2010;139:23–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dumesic DA, Padmanabhan V, Abbott DH. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Oocyte Developmental Competence. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008;63:39–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Reproductive and Stem Cell EngineeringCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  2. 2.Reproductive & Genetics Hospital of CITIC-XiangyaChangshaChina
  3. 3.Changsha CityChina

Personalised recommendations