Live birth rates following natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria

Abstract

What is the effect of natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the new ESHRE definition for poor ovarian responders: the Bologna criteria? Although natural cycle IVF is a promising treatment option for normal responders, poor ovarian responders, as described by the Bologna criteria, have a very poor prognosis and do not appear to experience substantial benefits with natural cycle IVF. Previous trials have shown that natural cycle IVF is an effective treatment for the general infertile population and might be an option for poor ovarian responders. However, none of the trials have examined the effect of natural cycle IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria, the newly introduced definition by the ESHRE Working Group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. In this trial, we examined the effect of natural cycle IVF in poor ovarian responders fulfilling the Bologna criteria. In this retrospective cohort trial, 164 consecutive patients, undergoing 469 natural cycle IVFs between 2008 and 2011 were included. Patients were stratified as poor and normal responders: 136 (390 cycles) were poor ovarian responders according to the Bologna criteria, whereas 28 women (79 treatment cycles) did not fulfil the criteria and were considered as normal responders. All patients were monitored with hormonal analysis and ultrasound scan every second day, from Day 7 or 8 of the cycle onwards. When a follicle of >16 mm was observed, ovulation was triggered with 5000 IU of i.m. hCG and oocyte retrieval was performed 32 h later. Live birth rates in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria were significantly lower compared with the control group of women; the live birth rate per cycle was 2.6 versus 8.9%, P = 0.006 and the live birth rate per treated patient was 7.4 versus 25%, P = 0.005. In poor responders according to the Bologna criteria, live birth rates were consistently low and did not differ among different age groups (≤ 35 years, 36-39 years and ≥ 40 years), with a range from 6.8 to 7.9%. A limitation of our analysis is its retrospective design; however, taking into account that we included only consecutive patients treated with exactly the same protocol, the likelihood of selection bias might be considerably limited. In addition, the control group in our study refers to women of younger age and therefore the promising results among patients who did not fulfil the Bologna criteria apply only to women of younger age. Our trial suggests that although natural cycle IVF is a promising treatment option for younger normal responders, its potential is very limited to poor ovarian responders as described by the Bologna criteria, irrespective of patient's age. This highlights the very poor prognosis of these women and therefore the urgent need for future trials to examine the effect of ovarian stimulation protocols in women with poor ovarian response as described by the Bologna criteria. No funding was used. There are no competing interests to declare.