Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Astolfi P, Ulizzi L, Zonta LA (1999) Selective cost of delayed childbearing. Hum Reprod 14:572–573

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Coccia ME, Rizzello F (2008) Ovarian reserve. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1127:27–30 (Review)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sauer MV (1998) The impact of age on reproductive potential: lessons learned from oocyte donation. Maturitas 30:221–225

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nikolaou D, Templeton A (2003) Early ovarian ageing: a hypothesis. Detection and clinical relevance. Hum Reprod 18:1137–1139

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Lambalk CB, van Disseldorp J, de Koning CH, Broekmans FJ (2009) Testing ovarian reserve to predict age at menopause. Maturitas 63:280–291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Mathur R, Kailasam C, Jenkins J (2007) Review of the evidence base of strategies to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Hum Fertil 10:75–85

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Faddy MJ, Gosden RG (1995) A mathematical model of follicle dynamics in the human ovary. Hum Reprod 10:770–775

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Behringer RR, Finegold MJ, Cate RL (1994) Mullerian-inhibiting substance function during mammalian sexual development. Cell 79:415–425

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, Volpe A (2006) Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod 21:3103–3107

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Neeta Singh, Anupama Bahadur, Neena Malhotra & Suneeta Mittal

  2. Department of Biostatistics, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Mani Kalaivani

Authors
  1. Neeta Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anupama Bahadur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neena Malhotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mani Kalaivani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Suneeta Mittal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anupama Bahadur.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2802-3

Keywords:

Search

Navigation