Skip to main content
Log in

Length of ovarian stimulation does not impact live birth rate in fresh donor oocyte cycles: a SART CORS study

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript



To evaluate the effect of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation length and total gonadotropin (GN) dose on recipient live birth rate (LBR) in fresh donor oocyte cycles.


Data was obtained from SART CORS on all fresh donor oocyte GnRH antagonist cycles (n = 1049) between 2014 and 2015 which resulted in a single embryo transferred. Donor and recipient demographic information and cycle characteristics were extracted. Binomial regression was used to estimate LBR with respect to days of stimulation (DOS) and total GN dose. Multivariate analysis was performed to evaluate these relationships after controlling for confounders.


Overall LBR in fresh donor oocyte cycles was 57%. Average stimulation length was 14.3 ± 4.9 days, and total GN dose was 2464 ± 1062 IU. On univariate analysis, neither days of stimulation (p = 0.5) nor total GN dose (p = 0.57) was independently correlated with LBR. However, in prolonged stimulations (> 15 days) with high total GN dose (> 3000 IU), as both the cycle length and total GN dose increased, LBR significantly decreased from 63.81 to 48.15% (p = 0.02) and from 67.61 to 48.15% (p = 0.01), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed no significant effect of either DOS or total GN dose on LBR.


LBR is significantly decreased in fresh donor oocyte cycles when cycles are prolonged with high total GN dose. However, after controlling for confounders neither DOS nor total GN dose significantly affects LBR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions


  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. 2016 Assisted reproductive technology national summary report. Atlanta (GA): US Dept of Health and Human Services; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kushnir VA, Darmon SK, Barad DH, Gleicher N. New national outcome data on fresh versus cryopreserved donor oocytes. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Eaton JL, Truong T, Li YJ, Polotsky AJ. Prevalence of a good perinatal outcome with cryopreserved compared with fresh donor oocytes. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(3):709–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hariton E, Kim K, Mumford SL, Palmor M, Bortoletto P, Cardozo ER, et al. Total number of oocytes and zygotes are predictive of live birth pregnancy in fresh donor oocyte in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2017;108:262–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Stolwijk AM, Zielhuis GA, Sauer MV, Hamilton CJ, Paulson RJ. The impact of the woman’s age on the success of standard and donor in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:702–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Guidelines for oocyte donation. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:13–5.

  7. Cohen MA, Lindheim SR, Sauer MV. Donor age is paramount to success in oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2755–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Letterie G, Marshall L, Angle M. The relationship of clinical response, oocyte number, and success in oocyte donor cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22:115–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pal L, Jindal S, Witt BR, Santoro N. Less is more: increased gonadotropin use for ovarian stimulation adversely influences clinical pregnancy and live birth after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1694–701.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pereira N, Friedman C, Hutchinson AP, Lekovich JP, Elias RT, Rosenwaks Z. Increased odds of live birth in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles with shorter ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:104–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chuang M, Zapantis A, Taylor M, Jindal SK, Neal-Perry GS, Lieman HJ, et al. Prolonged gonadotropin stimulation is associated with decreased ART success. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010;27:711–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Baker VL, Brown MB, Luke B, Smith GW, Ireland JJ. Gonadotropin dose is negatively correlated with live birth rate: analysis of more than 650,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1145–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ryan A, Wang S, Alvero R, Polotsky AJ. Prolonged gonadotropin stimulation for assisted reproductive technology cycles is associated with decreased pregnancy rates for all women except for women with polycystic ovary syndrome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2014;31:837–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jones T, Ho JR, Gualtieri M, Bruno-Gaston J, Chung K, Paulson RJ, et al. Clomiphene stair-step protocol for women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131:91–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Humphries LA, Dodge LE, Kennedy EB, Humm KC, Hacker MR, Sakkas D. Is younger better? Donor age less than 25 does not predict more favorable outcomes after in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36:1631–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Roberts R, Iatropoulou A, Ciantar D, Stark J, Becker DL, Franks S, et al. Follicle-stimulating hormone affects metaphase I chromosome alignment and increases aneuploidy in mouse oocytes matured in vitro. Biol Reprod. 2005;72:107–18.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kaleli S, Yanikkaya-Demirel G, Erel CT, Senturk LM, Topçuoğlu A, Irez T. High rate of aneuploidy in luteinized granulosa cells obtained from follicular fluid in women who underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:802–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fortier AL, Lopes FL, Darricarrere N, Martel J, Trasler JM. Superovulation alters the expression of imprinted genes in the midgestation mous pllacenta. Hum Mol Genet. 2008;17:1653–65.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Market-Velker BA, Zhang L, Magri LS, Bonvissuto AC, Mann MRW. Dual effects of superovulation: loss of maternal and paternal imprinted methylation in a dose-dependent manner. Hum Mol Genet. 2010;19:36–51.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Wall E, McCarrey JR. Effects of exogenous endocrine stimulation on epigenetic programming of the female germline genome. Anim Reprod. 2010;7:154–64.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sato A, Otsu E, Negishi H, Utsunomiya T, Arima T. Aberrant DNA methylation of imprinted loci in superovulated oocytes. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:26–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Santos MA, Kuijk EW, Macklon NS. The impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the developing embryo. Reproduction. 2010;139:23–34.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


SART wishes to thank all of its members for providing clinical information to the SART CORS database for use by patients and researchers. Without the efforts of our members, this research would not have been possible.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



All authors contributed to the study conception and data collection. Data analysis was performed by Melissa Fazzari. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Alexa Cohen, Michelle Kappy, and Rachel Gerber, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erkan Buyuk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Erkan Buyuk, MD is a consultant for EMD-Serono. Other authors report no conflict of interest.

Code availability

SART-CORS database.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cohen, A., Kappy, M., Fazzari, M. et al. Length of ovarian stimulation does not impact live birth rate in fresh donor oocyte cycles: a SART CORS study. J Assist Reprod Genet 37, 3033–3038 (2020).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: