Download fulltext HTML
Marischa, D., Pratama, G., Maidarti, M., Harzif, A. K., & Wiweko, B. (2017). Characteristic of Poor Responder Patients and the success rate of biochemical pregnancy in the administration of adjuvant recombinant Luteinizing Hormones in Yasmin Clinic, Jakarta. KnE Medicine, 1(1), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.18502/kme.v1i1.641

https://doi.org/10.18502/kme.v1i1.641

statistics

  • 798 Abstract Views
  • 232 PDF Views
  • 0 HTML Views

authors

  • Devi Marischa
    No author data available.
  • Gita Pratama
    No author data available.
  • Mila Maidarti
    No author data available.
  • Achmad K. Harzif
    No author data available.
  • Budi Wiweko
    No author data available.

Published Date

  • Jan 1, 2017

Characteristic of Poor Responder Patients and the success rate of biochemical pregnancy in the administration of adjuvant recombinant Luteinizing Hormones in Yasmin Clinic, Jakarta

KnE Medicine / The 6th Congress of the Asia Pacific Initiative on Reproduction (ASPIRE 2016) / Pages 193-201

Abstract

Introduction: Management for poor response patients is still a challenge for clinician engaged in Assisted Reproductive Technology. Various protocols have been proposed to improve the outcome for patients, though no RCT can provide the evidence based of success rate of one protocol among others.

Objective: Our purpose is to find the basic data of poor responder patients in Yasmin Clinic, Jakarta and to assess the IVF cycle outcome after the addition of recombinant Luteinizing Hormones.

Material and methods: This is a cohort retrospective study taken from medical records of IVF patients at Yasmin Clinic, Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital between January 2012 to January 2015.

Result :  Two hundreds and eighty-one poor response patients were selected for ART during January 2012 to January 2015, were divided into four main group. Control group received gonadotrophin protocol, while group II received additional recombinant Luteinizing hormones (rLH), Group III received additional Growth hormones (GH) and Group IV received additional rLH and GH both.

Discussion: Our study demonstrated the follicle count, the oocyte count and the cleavage rate were statistically significant difference between control group and LH group. Where the oocyte count and follicle count were significantly higher, but the cleavage rate with LH showed negative correlation compare with control group.

Conclusion : In this study we found that with adjuvant therapy with recombinant Luteinizing Hormones, produced higher follicles count and oocyte count.

References
[1] M. Schimberni, F. Morgia, J. Colabianchi, A. Giallonardo, C. Piscitelli, P. Giannini, M. Montigiani, and M. Sbracia, Natural-cycle in vitro fertilization in poor responder patients: a survey of 500 consecutive cycles, Fertility and Sterility, 92, no. 4, 1297– 1301, (2009).


[2] A. P. Ferraretti, L. Gianaroli, T. Motrenko, E. Feliciani, C. Tabanelli, and M. C. Magli, LH pretreatment as a novel strategy for poor responders, BioMed Research International, 2014, Article ID 926172, (2014).


[3] A. P. Ferraretti, A. La Marca, B. C. J. M. Fauser, B. Tarlatzis, G. Nargund, and L. Gianaroli, ESHRE consensus on the definition of ’poor response to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: The Bologna criteria, Human Reproduction, 26, no. 7, 1616–1624, (2011).


[4] K. A. Reynolds, K. R. Omurtag, P. T. Jimenez, J. S. Rhee, M. G. Tuuli, and E. S. Jungheim, Cycle cancellation and pregnancy after luteal estradiol priming in women defined As poor responders: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Human Reproduction, 28, no. 11, 2981–2989, (2013).


[5] E. Shahrokh Tehrani Nejad, B. Attar Shakeri, B. Hoseini Rashidi, F. Ramezanzade, and M. Shariat, GnRHa stop protocol versus long protocol in poor responder IVF patients, Iranian Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 6, no. 1, 33–37, (2008).


[6] F. Ubaldi, A. Vaiarelli, R. D’Anna, and L. Rienzi, Management of poor responders in IVF: Is there anything new? BioMed Research International, 2014, Article ID 352098, (2014).


[7] W. Fan, S. Li, Q. Chen, Z. Huang, Q. Ma, and Y. Wang, Recombinant Luteinizing Hormone supplementation in poor responders undergoing IVF: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Gynecological Endocrinology, 29, no. 4, 278–284, (2013).


[8] Kanadi. Sumapraja, Wiweko Budi. Dasar-dasar konsepsi buatan dalam Ilmu Kebidanan, in PT Bina Pustaka Sarwono Prawirohardjo, PT. Wiweko Budi. Dasar-dasar konsepsi buatan dalam Ilmu Kebidanan. Bina Pustaka Sarwono Prawirohardjo, Ed., 4, 2008.


[9] M. Eftekhar, A. Aflatoonian, F. Mohammadian, and T. Eftekhar, Adjuvant growth hormone therapy in antagonist protocol in poor responders undergoing assisted reproductive technology, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 287, no. 5, 1017– 1021, (2013).


[10] M. J. Hill, E. D. Levens, G. Levy, M. E. Ryan, J. M. Csokmay, A. H. Decherney, and B. W. Whitcomb, The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Fertility and Sterility, 97, no. 5, 1108–e1, (2012).


[11] P. Merviel, R. Cabry-Goubet, E. Lourdel, A. Devaux, N. Belhadri-Mansouri, H. Copin, and M. Benkhalifa, Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: Effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy, Reproductive Health, (2015).


[12] A. Revelli, A. Chiado’, D. Guidetti, F. Bongioanni, V. Rovei, and G. Gennarelli, Outcome of in vitro fertilization in patients with proven poor ovarian responsiveness after early vs. mid-follicular LH exposure: A prospective, randomized, controlled study, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 29, no. 9, 869–875, (2012).


[13] E. M. Chang, J. E. Han, H. J. Won, Y. S. Kim, T. K. Yoon, and W. S. Lee, Effect of estrogen priming through luteal phase and stimulation phase in poor responders in in-vitro fertilization, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 29, no. 3, 225–230, (2012).


[14] E. Mok-Lin, A. A. Brauer, G. Schattman, N. Zaninovic, Z. Rosenwaks, and S. Spandorfer, Follicular flushing and in vitro fertilization outcomes in the poorest responders: A randomized controlled trial, Human Reproduction, 28, no. 11, 2990– 2995, (2013).


[15] A. Revelli, A. Chiadò, P. Dalmasso, V. Stabile, F. Evangelista, G. Basso, and C. Benedetto, ”Mild” vs. ”long” protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in patients with expected poor ovarian responsiveness undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF): A large prospective randomized trial, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and
Genetics, 31, no. 7, 809–815, (2014).


[16] B. C. Tarlatzis, L. Zepiridis, G. Grimbizis, and J. Bontis, Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: A systematic review, Human Reproduction Update, 9, no. 1, 61–76, (2003).


[17] S. J. Fasouliotis, N. Laufer, S. Sabbagh-Ehrlich, A. Lewin, A. Hurwitz, and A. Simon, Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH)-Antagonist Versus GnRH-Agonist in Ovarian Stimulation of Poor Responders Undergoing IVF, Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 20, no. 11, 455–460, (2003).


[18] N. P. Polyzos, C. Blockeel, W. Verpoest, M. De Vos, D. Stoop, V. Vloeberghs, M. Camus, P. Devroey, and H. Tournaye, Live birth rates following natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria, Human Reproduction, 27, no. 12, 3481–3486, (2012).


[19] A. Badawy, A. Wageah, M. E. Gharib, and E. E. Osman, Prediction and diagnosis of poor ovarian response: The dilemma, Journal of Reproduction and Infertility, 12, no. 4, 241–248, (2011).