In vitro fertilization program based on programmed cycles monitored by ultrasound only

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI)

BACKGROUND

Monitoring of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is necessary to detect as well as reduce the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) whilst achieving the optimal ovarian response needed for assisted reproduction treatment. Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation IVF and ICSI treatment has included transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) plus serum estradiol levels. The need for combined monitoring (using TVUS and serum estradiol) during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction is controversial. It has been suggested that combined monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for women and that simplification of IVF and ICSI therapy by using TVUS only should be considered.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in IVF and ICSI cycles in subfertile couples with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentration, with respect to rates of live birth, pregnancy and OHSS.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update conducted in March 2020, two review authors searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the National Research Register, and web-based trial registers. There was no language restriction applied. All references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentrations in women undergoing COH for IVF and ICSI treatment were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (IK, AW) independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Outcomes data were pooled and summary statistics were presented when appropriate. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update in 2020. The evidence based on the six trials identified in 2014 remained unchanged. They included 781 women undergoing monitoring of COH with either TVUS alone or a combination of TVUS and serum estradiol concentration during IVF or ICSI treatment. None of the six studies reported our primary outcome of live birth rate. Two studies presented pregnancy rate per initiated cycle and per embryo transfer, respectively. Four studies reported pregnancy rate per woman with pooled data; we are uncertain of the effect of monitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring on clinical pregnancy rate per woman (odds ratio (OR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.54; four studies; N = 617; I² = 5%; low quality evidence). This suggests in women with a 36% chance of clinical pregnancy using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the clinical pregnancy rate using TVUS only would be between 31% and 46%. We are uncertain of any effect in the mean number of oocytes retrieved per woman (mean difference (MD) 0.32; 95% CI -0.60 to 1.24; five studies; N = 596; I² = 17%; low quality evidence).  We are uncertain whether monitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring affected the incidence of OHSS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.20; six studies; N = 781; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), suggesting that in women with a 4% chance of OHSS using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the OHSS rate monitored by TVUS only would be between 2% and 8%. The cycle cancellation rate was similar in both arms of two studies (0/34 versus 1/31, 1/25 versus 1/25; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.07 to 4.39; N = 115; I² = 0%; low quality evidence).  The evidence was low quality for all comparisons. Limitations included imprecision and potential bias due to unclear randomisation methods, allocation concealment and blinding, as well as differences in treatment protocols. Quality assessment was hampered by the lack of methodological descriptions in several studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update found no new randomised trials. Evidence from the six studies previously identified did not suggest that combined monitoring by TVUS and serum estradiol is more efficacious than monitoring by TVUS alone with regard to clinical pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS. The number of oocytes retrieved appeared similar for both monitoring protocols. The data suggest that both these monitoring methods are safe and reliable. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the overall quality of the evidence was low. Results were compromised by imprecision and poor reporting of study methodology. The choice of one or the other method may depend upon the convenience of its use, and the associated costs. An economic evaluation of the costs involved with the two methods and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring would be welcome.

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI)

BACKGROUND

Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment has included transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) plus serum estradiol levels to ensure safe practice by reducing the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) whilst achieving the good ovarian response needed for assisted reproduction treatment. The need for combined monitoring (using TVUS and serum estradiol) during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction is controversial. It has been suggested that combined monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for women and that simplification of IVF and ICSI therapy by using TVUS only should be considered.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in IVF and ICSI cycles in subfertile couples with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentration, with respect to rates of live birth, pregnancy and OHSS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the National Research Register, and web-based trial registers such as Current Controlled Trials. The last search was conducted in May 2014. There was no language restriction applied. All references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentrations in women undergoing COH for IVF and ICSI treatment were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the authors. Outcomes data were pooled and summary statistics were presented when appropriate. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

With this update, four new studies were identified resulting in a total of six trials including 781 women undergoing monitoring of COH with either TVUS alone or a combination of TVUS and serum estradiol concentration during IVF or ICSI treatment.None of the six studies reported our primary outcome of live birth rate. Pooled data showed no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy rate per woman between monitoring with TVUS only and combined monitoring (odds ratio (OR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.54; four studies; N = 617; I² = 5%; low quality evidence). This suggests that compared with women with a 34% chance of clinical pregnancy using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using TVUS only was between 29% and 44%.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the reported cases of OHSS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.20; six studies; N = 781; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), suggesting that compared with women with a 4% chance of OHSS using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the OHSS rate in women monitored by TVUSS only was between 2% and 8%.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the mean number of oocytes retrieved pre woman (mean difference (MD) 0.32; 95% CI -0.60 to 1.24; five studies; N = 596; I² = 17%; low quality evidence).The evidence was low quality for all comparisons. Limitations included imprecision and potential bias due to unclear randomisation methods, allocation concealment and blinding, as well as differences in treatment protocols. Quality assessment was hampered by the lack of methodological descriptions in several studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update found no evidence from randomised trials to suggest that combined monitoring by TVUS and serum estradiol is more efficacious than monitoring by TVUS alone with regard to clinical pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS. The number of oocytes retrieved appeared similar for both monitoring protocols. The data suggest that both these monitoring methods are safe and reliable. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the overall quality of the evidence was low. Results were compromised by imprecision and poor reporting of study methodology. A combined monitoring protocol including both TVUS and serum estradiol may need to be retained as precautionary good clinical practice and as a confirmatory test in a subset of women to identify those at high risk of OHSS. An economic evaluation of the costs involved with the two methods and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring would be welcome.

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI)

BACKGROUND

Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment has included ultrasonography plus serum estradiol concentration to ensure safe practice by reducing the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The need for intensive monitoring during ovarian stimulation in IVF is controversial. It has been suggested that close monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for the woman and simplification of IVF therapy by using ultrasound only should be considered. This systematic review assessed the effects of ovarian monitoring by ultrasound only versus ultrasound plus serum estradiol measurement on IVF outcomes and the occurrence of OHSS in women undergoing stimulated cycles in IVF and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF and ICSI cycles with ultrasound plus serum estradiol concentration versus ultrasound only in terms of live birth rates, pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the latest issue of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2007), EMBASE (1980 to May 2007), CINAHL (1982 to May 2007), the National Research Register, and web-based trial databases such as Current Controlled Trials. There was no language restriction. Additionally all references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with ultrasound plus serum estradiol concentration versus ultrasound only in women undergoing ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF and ICSI treatment were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently examined the electronic search results for relevant trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality. They resolved disagreements by discussion with two other authors. Outcomes data were pooled when appropriate and summary statistics presented when limited data did not allow meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 1119 potentially eligible reports, of which two met our inclusion criteria. These involved 411 women who underwent controlled ovarian stimulation monitoring. Our primary outcome of live birth rate was not reported in either study. One trial reported clinical pregnancy rate per woman (33% versus 31%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.49), the second trial reported clinical pregnancy rate per oocyte retrieval (22% versus 25%). There was no significant difference between the ultrasound plus estradiol group and the ultrasound alone group in the mean number of oocytes retrieved (WMD -0.55, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.69) and the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.78) for the two studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from randomised trials to support cycle monitoring by ultrasound plus serum estradiol as more efficacious than cycle monitoring by ultrasound only on outcomes of live birth and pregnancy rates. A large well-designed randomised controlled trial is needed that reports on live birth rates and pregnancy, with economic evaluation of the costs involved and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring. A randomised trial with sufficiently large sample size to test the effects of different monitoring protocols on OHSS, a rare outcome, will pose a great challenge. Until such a trial is considered feasible, cycle monitoring by transvaginal ultrasound plus serum estradiol may need to be retained as a precautionary good practice point.

Monitoring of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles by ultrasound versus by ultrasound and hormonal levels: a prospective, multicenter, randomized study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether cycle monitoring using both serum E(2) and ultrasound findings yields superior clinical pregnancy rates during IVF-embryo transfer (ET) compared to monitoring with ultrasound alone.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, multicenter, patient-blinded study.

SETTING

Four assisted conception units in the United Kingdom.

PATIENT(S)

Two hundred ninety-seven women believed to be normal responders undergoing IVF treatment.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients were randomly allocated on day 7 of stimulation to one of the two hCG administration criteria: [1] the E(2)-to-follicle > or =11 mm ratio was between 250 and 500 pmol/L/follicle and at least 2 follicles reached a mean diameter of 18 mm or [2] at least 2 follicles reached a mean diameter of 18 mm and the endometrium thickness was > or =8 mm.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Duration and cumulative dose of recombinant human FSH, total number of growing follicles, oocytes retrieved, number and quality of embryos, pregnancy rates, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rates.

RESULT(S)

Two hundred ninety-seven patients were randomized to one of the two criteria groups. Of these, 288 (97%) received urinary (u)-hCG (143 in group A and 145 in group B). One hundred three women in group A (72%) met both criteria for hCG administration. Pregnancy and OHSS rates were similar (34.3% vs. 31.4% and 4.9% vs. 4.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSION(S)

The addition of E(2)/follicle criteria to ultrasound monitoring of IVF cycles in normal responders seldom changes the timing of hCG, and does not increase pregnancy rates or the risk of OHSS.

Value of the serum estradiol level on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin injection and on the day after in predicting the outcome in natural in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles

OBJECTIVE

To predict the risk of premature ovulation and possibility of pregnancy in natural IVF/ICSI cycles on the basis of the estradiol (E2) level on the day of hCG injection and on the day after.

DESIGN

A prospective study.

SETTING

Hospital research program.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred sixty-four women undergoing 305 IVF/ICSI natural cycles.

INTERVENTION(S)

Serum E2 levels were measured approximately 12 h before (day 0) and 12-17 h after hCG administration (day 1).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

E2 levels on day 0 and day 1, the ratio of the day 1 to day 0 levels, and cycle outcome.

RESULT(S)

In cycles with premature ovulation and in conception cycles, the average E2 level on day 0 was statistically significantly higher than in other cycles, whereas the E2 ratio was statistically significantly lower. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine the connection of the E2 level on day 0 (B0 = -0.742, B = 2.147, P =.01) and the E2 ratio (B0 = -0.742, B = -3.135, P<.001) with premature ovulation. Only the E2 ratio (B0 = 0.659, B = -2.209, P =.0068) was significantly connected with conception.

CONCLUSION(S)

In predicting the outcome of natural IVF/ICSI cycles, the importance lies not in the E2 level on the day of hCG administration or on the day after, but rather in the E2 ratio.

Simplification of the clinical phase of IVF and ICSI treatment in programmed cycles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the success of a protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation allowing patient self-selection into groups for ovulation stimulation planned 8 weeks and more in advance following cycle synchronization, drug self-administration as well as a reduced number of folliculometries.

METHODS

A total of 714 patients received the same stimulation protocol. In 260 cases GnRH-a was applied daily and in 454 as depot. In all patients FSH-HP was self-administered subcutaneously for ovarian stimulation. In 316 patients IVF and in 398 patients ICSI was performed.

RESULTS

The delivery rate per started cycle was higher in patients receiving depot GnRH-a in the IVF and ICSI group (30.2 vs. 23.4) than in those receiving subcutaneous GnRH-a (20.2 vs. 22.1).

CONCLUSION

Programming of the IVF/ICSI cycle greatly simplifies treatment. A comparison of pregnancy rate and delivery rate per cycle between depot and subcutaneous daily application of GnRh-a did not confirm any statistically significant difference.

The preovulatory serum estradiol pattern in natural IVF/ICSI cycles

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to find whether inferences to the possible success of natural IVF/ICSI cycles could be drawn from the estradiol (E2) pattern.

METHODS

Sixty-eight women who underwent oocyte recovery in 98 natural cycles were recruited for the study. Daily serum E2 was measured in the preovulatory phase (-3 to +2 day). The E2 pattern was compared among four groups: Group A, unsuccessful egg retrieval; Group B, no fertilization; Group C, no implantation; and Group D, implantation.

RESULTS

There was no difference in mean E2 levels between groups. Only the ratio of E2 on day +1/E2 on day 0 was significantly lower in conception cycles in comparison with nonconception cycles. In cycles with a decreased E2 level on day +1, only the implantation rate was significantly higher in comparison with cycles with an increasing E2 level.

CONCLUSIONS

From the E2 pattern it is possible to make inferences about the likelihood of implantation but not the fertilization or oocyte recovery success.

Ultrasound or ultrasound and hormonal determinations for in vitro fertilization monitoring

OBJECTIVE

To compare pregnancy rate, cost effectiveness, patients effort, related stress, and the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate, between patients monitored for ovarian hyperstimulation using a combination of ultrasound and hormonal determination (combination protocol), in contrast to applying ultrasound only, in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF ET).

METHOD

This study was carried out on a total of 206 patients who underwent ovarian hyperstimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin and human chorionic gonadotropin (hMG/hCG) protocol. The first 110 patients were monitored every other day by ultrasound only protocol (Group I) while the next 96 patients were monitored daily by a combination protocol (Group II). The pregnancy rate, taking home baby rate, OHSS rate and total cost of monitoring for each patient in both groups were calculated and compared. The patients and the IVF team effort and stress were also compared.

RESULT

Analysis of this study showed no statistical significant differences in clinical pregnancy rate and taking home baby rate between patients in protocol I and II (23.4% vs. 22.9%) and (14.8% vs. 14.3%), respectively. OHSS developed in only two patients--one in each group. The average cost of monitoring was significantly cheaper in Group I--78 Jordanian dinars (JD) vs. 222 JD in Group II (P < 0.0001). (NB: 1 USD = 0.7 JD).

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound monitoring only proved to be cheaper, more convenient and less time consuming for both the patients and the IVF team. However, no significant difference was found regarding the clinical pregnancy rate and taking home baby rate between the two protocols.

Preprogrammed, unmonitored ovarian stimulation reduces expense without compromising the outcome of assisted reproduction

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a novel, preprogrammed, unmonitored stimulation protocol could reduce the cost of assisted reproductive technology (ART) without compromising outcome or safety.

DESIGN

Prospective, nonrandomized study of unmonitored ART versus traditional monitoring.

SETTING

University ART program.

PATIENT(S)

Infertile women aged < 39 years, with a basal FSH level < 15 mIU/mL (conversion factor to SI unit, 1.00) and regular menstrual cycles, undergoing ART.

INTERVENTION(S)

Oocyte retrieval was performed at a predetermined time in 72 unmonitored cycles based on age and basal FSH level. No monitoring of any type was performed before retrieval. There were 86 monitored control cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The number of oocytes, and embryos; complications including ovarian hyperstimulation.

RESULT(S)

The total cost for unmonitored ART was significantly less than for monitored cycles. There was no difference between groups for patient age, number of oocytes obtained, or number of metaphase II oocytes. For non-male-factor patients, the number of oocytes fertilized, number of embryos transferred, and the clinical pregnancy rates were comparable. There was one case of severe hyperstimulation requiring hospitalization in the unmonitored group.

CONCLUSION(S)

This novel, unmonitored ovarian stimulation protocol provides ART at a significantly lower cost than is incurred with traditional monitoring, with no apparent compromise in outcome.

Minimal monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation: a useful simplification of the clinical phase of in vitro fertilization treatment

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility of IVF treatment with minimal monitoring during ovarian hyperstimulation.

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis and prospective study with real-time control group.

SETTING

Transport IVF program with transport clinic and satellite clinics.

PATIENTS

One hundred consecutive IVF cycles monitored at a transport clinic and 100 concurrent consecutive cycles monitored at satellite clinics, using the same stimulation-monitoring protocol and resulting in oocyte aspiration, are compared retrospectively for the number of ultrasound (US) measurements carried out during monitoring and for results of IVF treatment. No patient selection took place. After introduction of a minimal monitoring protocol at a transport clinic, a prospective study was started comparing 100 minimal monitoring cycles at a transport clinic with 100 concurrent conventional monitoring cycles at satellite clinics, all resulting in oocyte aspiration. Patients entered the retrospective or prospective study only once. In all cases the same laboratory facility was used. Monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation was done with US measurements only. Cycles were canceled for impending ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) when > 35 follicles were seen to develop during hyperstimulation.

RESULTS

Retrospective analysis shows no difference for the average number of US measurements at transport and satellite clinics (2.8 +/- 0.9 and 3.0 +/- 1.0; mean +/- SD). No differences were found in the number of ongoing pregnancies obtained in the two groups: 22 and 18, respectively. One case of severe OHSS occurred in the satellite clinic group. Introduction of minimal monitoring at the transport clinic gives a significant reduction of the average number of US measurements at the transport clinic compared with satellite clinics, where conventional monitoring continued to be used (1.5 +/- 0.8 versus 2.8 +/- 0.9). Ongoing pregnancies at transport and satellite clinics numbered 33 and 26, respectively. In both groups one patient developed severe OHSS. Sixty-two percent of cycles at the transport clinic were monitored with one US measurement only. No cancellations for impending OHSS occurred during the study period.

CONCLUSION

A large group of patients need only one US measurement during monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation. Minimal monitoring gives a useful further simplification of the clinical phase of IVF treatment, without adverse effects on treatment outcome and incidence of OHSS.