Skip to main content

Success rates in minimal stimulation cycle IVF with clomiphene citrate only



To determine age-adjusted overall success rates for patients undergoing clomiphene citrate only minimal stimulation cycle (mini) in vitro fertilization (IVF) without any gonadotropin administration.


Eight hundred thirty-nine women (mean age: 38.4 ± 0.1 years; 2488 cycles) underwent clomiphene citrate only mini-IVF. Their first oocyte retrieval was between January 2009 and December 2009, with follow-up until December 2014. The cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per oocyte retrieval cycle started and live birth rate per oocyte was retrospectively analyzed. The basic CLBR was calculated as the number of women who achieved a live birth divided by the total number of women who started oocyte retrieval.


The mean number of oocytes retrieved was 1.5. The basic CLBRs for all ages after the first and third cycles were 22.6% and 39.2%, respectively. For ≤ 34 years, 35–37 years, 38–40 years, 41–42 years, and ≥ 43 years, CLBRs after the first and third cycles were 42.5% and 70.1%, 32.9% and 49.1%, 20.0% and 38.6%, 12.6% and 25.2%, and 4.4% and 8.8%, respectively. These rates had a significant relationship with age (P < 0.01). The LBR per oocyte for all ages was 9.6%.


Acceptable overall IVF success rates can be achieved in clomiphene citrate only mini-IVF, as well as acceptable LBR. The CLBRs and LBRs per oocyte are evidently influenced by women’s age.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. 1.

    Sophonsritsuk A, Choktanasiri W, Weerakiet S, Rojanasakul A. Comparison of outcomes and direct cost between minimal stimulation and conventional protocols on ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2005;31(5):459–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ, Van Opstal D, Beckers NG, Verhoeff A, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(4):980–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Fauser BC, Devroey P, Yen SS, Gosden R, Crowley WF Jr, Baird DT, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation for IVF: appraisal of potential benefits and drawbacks. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(11):2681–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, De Klerk C, Polinder S, Beckers NG, Klinkert ER, et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2007;369(9563):743–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Pelinck MJ, Vogel NE, Arts EG, Simons AH, Heineman MJ, Hoek A. Cumulative pregnancy rates after a maximum of nine cycles of modified natural cycle IVF and analysis of patient drop-out: a cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(9):2463–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Polinder S, Heijnen EM, Macklon NS, Habbema JD, Fauser BJ, Eijkemans MJ. Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(2):316–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Silber SJ, Kato K, Aoyama N, Yabuuchi A, Skaletsky H, Fan Y, et al. Intrinsic fertility of human oocytes. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(5):1232–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Macklon NS, Heijnen EM, Baart EB, Hohmann FP, et al. The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15(1):5–12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Verberg MF, Macklon NS, Nargund G, Frydman R, Devroey P, Broekmans FJ, et al. Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15(1):13–29.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Nargund G, Fauser BC, Macklon NS, Ombelet W, Nygren K, Frydman R. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(11):2801–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Kato K, Takehara Y, Segawa T, Kawachiya S, Okuno T, Kobayashi T, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation combined with elective single embryo transfer policy: age-specific results of a large, single-Centre, Japanese cohort. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Teramoto S, Kato O. Minimal ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: a large-scale retrospective study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2007;15(2):134–48.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Patrizio P, Sakkas D. From oocyte to baby: a clinical evaluation of the biological efficiency of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4):1061–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Cobo A, Garrido N, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Six years' experience in ovum donation using vitrified oocytes: report of cumulative outcomes, impact of storage time, and development of a predictive model for oocyte survival rate. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(6):1426–34 e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    McLernon DJ, Maheshwari A, Lee AJ, Bhattacharya S. Cumulative live birth rates after one or more complete cycles of IVF: a population-based study of linked cycle data from 178,898 women. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(3):572–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    De Brucker M, Haentjens P, Evenepoel J, Devroey P, Collins J, Tournaye H. Cumulative delivery rates in different age groups after artificial insemination with donor sperm. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(8):1891–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Garrido N, Bellver J, Remohi J, Simon C, Pellicer A. Cumulative live-birth rates per total number of embryos needed to reach newborn in consecutive in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles: a new approach to measuring the likelihood of IVF success. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(1):40–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Li HW, Lee VC, Lau EY, Yeung WS, Ho PC, Ng EH. Role of baseline antral follicle count and anti-Mullerian hormone in prediction of cumulative live birth in the first in vitro fertilisation cycle: a retrospective cohort analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e61095.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(3):236–43.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bodri D, Kawachiya S, De Brucker M, Tournaye H, Kondo M, Kato R, et al. Cumulative success rates following mild IVF in unselected infertile patients: a 3-year, single-Centre cohort study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28(5):572–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L, Magli MC, Devroey P. Mild ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate launch is a realistic option for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(2):333–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Nargund G, Waterstone J, Bland J, Philips Z, Parsons J, Campbell S. Cumulative conception and live birth rates in natural (unstimulated) IVF cycles. Hum Reprod. 2001;16(2):259–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Pelinck MJ, Knol HM, Vogel NE, Arts EG, Simons AH, Heineman MJ, et al. Cumulative pregnancy rates after sequential treatment with modified natural cycle IVF followed by IVF with controlled ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(8):1808–14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Casano S, Guidetti D, Patriarca A, Pittatore G, Gennarelli G, Revelli A. MILD ovarian stimulation with GnRH-antagonist vs. long protocol with low dose FSH for non-PCO high responders undergoing IVF: a prospective, randomized study including thawing cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(12):1343–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Kato K, Ueno S, Yabuuchi A, Uchiyama K, Okuno T, Kobayashi T, et al. Women's age and embryo developmental speed accurately predict clinical pregnancy after single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;29(4):411–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Fukuda J, Abe T, Okuno T, Kobayashi T, Kato K. Administering human chorionic gonadotropin injections for triggering follicle maturation could impact fertility during the subsequent menstrual cycle. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;132(3):309–13.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Knowlton NS, Craig LB, Zavy MT, Hansen KR. Validation of the power model of ovarian nongrowing follicle depletion associated with aging in women. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(3):851–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Yan J, Wu K, Tang R, Ding L, Chen ZJ. Effect of maternal age on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Sci China Life Sci. 2012;55(8):694–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Yarali H, Bozdag G, Polat M, Esinler I, Tiras B. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcome of women over 39: an analysis of 668 cycles. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;281(2):349–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Feichtinger M, Stopp T, Gobl C, Feichtinger E, Vaccari E, Madel U, et al. Correction: increasing live birth rate by Preimplantation genetic screening of pooled polar bodies using Array comparative genomic hybridization. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Fragouli E, Alfarawati S, Goodall NN, Sanchez-Garcia JF, Colls P, Wells D. The cytogenetics of polar bodies: insights into female meiosis and the diagnosis of aneuploidy. Mol Hum Reprod. 2011;17(5):286–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Gabriel AS, Thornhill AR, Ottolini CS, Gordon A, Brown AP, Taylor J, et al. Array comparative genomic hybridisation on first polar bodies suggests that non-disjunction is not the predominant mechanism leading to aneuploidy in humans. J Med Genet. 2011;48(7):433–7.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Geraedts J, Montag M, Magli MC, Repping S, Handyside A, Staessen C, et al. Polar body array CGH for prediction of the status of the corresponding oocyte. Part I: clinical results. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(11):3173–80.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Handyside AH, Montag M, Magli MC, Repping S, Harper J, Schmutzler A, et al. Multiple meiotic errors caused by predivision of chromatids in women of advanced maternal age undergoing in vitro fertilisation. Eur J Hum Genet. 2012;20(7):742–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kuliev A, Zlatopolsky Z, Kirillova I, Spivakova J, Cieslak JJ. Meiosis errors in over 20,000 oocytes studied in the practice of preimplantation aneuploidy testing. Reprod BioMed Online. 2011;22(1):2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Smith A, Tilling K, Nelson SM, Lawlor DA. Live-birth rate associated with repeat in vitro fertilization treatment cycles. Jama. 2015;314(24):2654–62.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information




T.A., A.Y., K.K., and S.S were responsible for the supervision, study design, data collection and interpretation, and manuscript writing. K.E. was responsible for study design and data collection. K.E. and H.S. performed statistical data analysis. J.F., S.U., Y.F., S.G., and T.K. were responsible for the study design and literature review.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keiichi Kato.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material


(DOCX 43 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abe, T., Yabuuchi, A., Ezoe, K. et al. Success rates in minimal stimulation cycle IVF with clomiphene citrate only. J Assist Reprod Genet 37, 297–304 (2020).

Download citation


  • Minimal stimulation cycle IVF
  • Cumulative live birth rates
  • Woman’s age
  • The live birth rate per oocyte