Minimal ovarian stimulation is an alternative to conventional protocols for older women according to Poseidon’s stratification: a retrospective multicenter cohort study

• Published in: Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics Vol. 38; no. 7; pp. 1799 - 1807
• Main Authors: Cozzolino, Mauro, Cecchino, Gustavo Nardini, Bosch, Ernesto, Garcia-Velasco, Juan Antonio, Garrido, Nicolás
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01.07.2021; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Adult; Assisted Reproduction Technologies; Birth Rate; Cohort analysis; Drug Costs; Embryo transfer; Embryo Transfer - statistics & numerical data; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Follicle Stimulating Hormone - therapeutic use; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone - antagonists & inhibitors; Gonadotropins - administration & dosage; Gonadotropins - economics; Gonadotropins - therapeutic use; Gynecology; Human Genetics; Humans; In vitro fertilization; Maternal Age; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Oocytes; Ovarian Reserve; Ovaries; Ovulation Induction - methods; Patients; Pregnancy; Reproductive Medicine; Retrospective Studies; Survival; In vitro fertilization; Live birth; Poseidon; Poor responders; Minimal ovarian stimulation
• ISSN: 1058-0468; 1573-7330
• DOI: 10.1007/s10815-021-02185-2

Objective To investigate whether minimal ovarian stimulation (mOS) is as effective as conventional ovarian stimulation (cOS) for older women belonging to different groups according to the Poseidon criteria. Material and methods Observational retrospective multicentre cohort including women from Poseidon’s groups 2 and 4 that underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression model, adding as a random effect the patients and the stimulation cycle considering the dependence of data. Survival curves were employed as a measure of the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). The primary outcomes were live birth rate per embryo transfer and CLBR per consecutive embryo transfer and oocyte consumed until a live birth was achieved. Results A total of 2002 patients underwent 3056 embryo transfers (mOS = 497 and cOS = 2559). The live birth rates per embryo transfer in mOS and cOS showed no significant difference in both Poseidon’s groups. Likewise, the logistic regression showed similar live birth rates between the two protocols in Poseidon’s groups 2 (OR 1.165, 95% CI 0.77–1.77; p = 0.710) and 4 (OR 1.264 95% CI 0.59–2.70; p = 0.387). However, the survival curves showed higher CLBR per oocyte in women that received mOS (Poseidon group 2: p < 0.001 and Poseidon group 4: p = 0.039). Conclusions Minimal ovarian stimulation is a good alternative to COS as a first-line treatment for patients belonging to Poseidon’s groups 2 and 4. The number of oocytes needed to achieve a live birth seems inferior in mOS strategy than cOS.