26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Double Stimulation in the Same Ovarian Cycle (DuoStim) to Maximize the Number of Oocytes Retrieved From Poor Prognosis Patients: A Multicenter Experience and SWOT Analysis

      brief-report

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A panel of experts known as the POSEIDON group has recently redefined the spectrum of poor responder patients and introduced the concept of suboptimal response. Since an ideal management for these patients is still missing, they highlighted the importance of tailoring the ovarian stimulation based on the chance of each woman to obtain an euploid blastocyst. Interestingly, a novel pattern of follicle recruitment has been defined: multiple waves may arise during a single ovarian cycle. This evidence opened important clinical implications for the treatment of poor responders. For instance, double stimulation in the follicular (FPS) and luteal phase (LPS) of the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) is an intriguing option to perform two oocyte retrievals in the shortest possible time. Here, we reported our 2-year experience of DuoStim application in four private IVF centers. To date, 310 poor prognosis patients completed a DuoStim protocol and underwent IVF with blastocyst-stage preimplantation-genetic-testing. LPS resulted into a higher mean number of oocytes collected than FPS; however, their competence (i.e., fertilization, blastocyst, euploidy rates, and clinical outcomes after euploid single-embryo-transfer) was comparable. Importantly, the rate of patients obtaining at least one euploid blastocyst increased from 42.3% ( n = 131/310) after FPS to 65.5% ( n = 203/310) with the contribution of LPS. A summary of the putative advantages and disadvantages of DuoStim was reported here through a Strengths–Weaknesses–Opportunities–Threats analysis. The strengths of this approach make it very promising. However, more studies are needed in the future to limit its weaknesses, shed light on its putative threats, and realize its opportunities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references58

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening.

          To determine the relationship between the age of the female partner and the prevalence and nature of human embryonic aneuploidy. Retrospective. Academic. Trophectoderm biopsies. Comprehensive chromosomal screening performed on patients with blastocysts available for biopsy. Evaluation of the impact of maternal age on the prevalence of aneuploidy, the probability of having no euploid embryos within a cohort, the complexity of aneuploidy as gauged by the number of aneuploid chromosomes, and the trisomy/monosomy ratio. Aneuploidy increased predictably after 26 years of age. A slightly increased prevalence was noted at younger ages, with >40% aneuploidy in women 23 years and under. The no euploid embryo rate was lowest (2% to 6%) in women aged 26 to 37, was 33% at age 42, and was 53% at age 44. Among the biopsies with aneuploidy, 64% involved a single chromosome, 20% two chromosomes, and 16% three chromosomes, with the proportion of more complex aneuploidy increasing with age. Finally, the trisomy/monosomy ratio approximated 1 and increased minimally with age. The lowest risk for embryonic aneuploidy was between ages 26 and 30. Both younger and older age groups had higher rates of aneuploidy and an increased risk for more complex aneuploidies. The overall risk did not measurably change after age 43. Trisomies and monosomies are equally prevalent. Copyright © 2014 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology.

            Advances in cell culture media have led to a shift in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) practice from cleavage stage embryo transfer to blastocyst stage transfer. The rationale for blastocyst transfer is to improve both uterine and embryonic synchronicity and enable self selection of viable embryos, thus resulting in better live birth rates.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cumulative live birth rate: time for a consensus?

              Traditionally, IVF success rates have been reported in terms of live birth per fresh cycle or embryo transfer. With the increasing use of embryo freezing and thawing it is essential that we report not only outcomes following fresh but also those after frozen embryo transfer as a complete measure of success of an IVF treatment. Most people agree that an individual's chance of having a baby following fresh and frozen embryo transfer should be described as cumulative live birth rate. However, views on the most appropriate parameters required to calculate such an outcome have been inconsistent. There is an additional dimension-time for all frozen embryos to be used up by a couple, which can influence the outcome. Given that cumulative live birth rate is generally perceived to be the preferred reporting system in IVF, it is time to have an international consensus on how this statistic is calculated, reported and interpreted by stakeholders across the world.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                URI : https://frontiersin.org/people/u/547452
                URI : https://frontiersin.org/people/u/232208
                URI : https://frontiersin.org/people/u/572773
                URI : https://frontiersin.org/people/u/571290
                URI : https://frontiersin.org/people/u/571282
                Journal
                Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
                Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)
                Front. Endocrinol.
                Frontiers in Endocrinology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-2392
                14 June 2018
                2018
                : 9
                : 317
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Clinica Valle Giulia, G.en.e.r.a. Centers for Reproductive Medicine , Rome, Italy
                [2] 2Clinica Ruesch, G.en.e.r.a. Centers for Reproductive Medicine , Naples, Italy
                [3] 3G.en.e.r.a. Veneto, G.en.e.r.a. Centers for Reproductive Medicine , Marostica, Italy
                [4] 4G.en.e.r.a. Umbria, G.en.e.r.a. Centers for Reproductive Medicine , Umbertide, Italy
                [5] 5University of Targu Mures , Targu Mures, Romania
                Author notes

                Edited by: Sandro C. Esteves, Androfert, Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, Brazil

                Reviewed by: Hakan Yarali, Anatolia IVF, Turkey; Giuliano Marchetti Bedoschi, University of São Paulo, Brazil

                *Correspondence: Alberto Vaiarelli, alberto.vaiarelli@ 123456gmail.com

                Specialty section: This article was submitted to Reproduction, a section of the journal Frontiers in Endocrinology

                Article
                10.3389/fendo.2018.00317
                6010525
                29963011
                86ffdcc0-b56c-4a00-9ac7-904b7e0eec54
                Copyright © 2018 Vaiarelli, Cimadomo, Trabucco, Vallefuoco, Buffo, Dusi, Fiorini, Barnocchi, Bulletti, Rienzi and Ubaldi.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 04 April 2018
                : 28 May 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 64, Pages: 8, Words: 6165
                Categories
                Endocrinology
                Perspective

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                duostim,double stimulation,dual-stimulation,low prognosis patients,poor responder,ivf,euploid blastocyst,poseidon

                Comments

                Comment on this article