Volume 14, Issue 8 (8-2016)
IJRM 2016, 14(8): 501-506 |
Back to browse issues page
Ensieh Shahrokh Tehraninezhad1 
, Fatemeh Mehrabi1 , Raheleh Taati1 , Vahid Kalantar1 , Elham Aziminekoo1 , Azam Tarafdari * 2
, Fatemeh Mehrabi1 , Raheleh Taati1 , Vahid Kalantar1 , Elham Aziminekoo1 , Azam Tarafdari * 2
1- Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Imam Khomeini Complex Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Imam Khomeini Complex Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , tarafdari@sina.tums.ac.ir
2- Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Imam Khomeini Complex Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , tarafdari@sina.tums.ac.ir
Abstract: (5178 Views)
Background: The predictive roles of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) as ovarian reserve markers in women with different age groups are not established well.
Objective: This study compares the value of FSH, AMH and AFC at the time of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment in different age groups.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 103 women aged 20-43 years candidates for IVF/ICSI cycle were recruited. FSH, AMH and AFC on day 3 of menstrual cycle were measured. The relationship of these measured markers with outcome variables (oocytes number, number of frozen/fresh embryo and chemical and clinical pregnancy) was assessed in different age groups (i.e. 20-32, 33-37 and 38-43 years).
Results: our results show that age was correlated with clinical pregnancy, oocyte count and fresh and frozen embryo (p<0.001). AMH, AFC and FSH were not correlated with clinical or chemical pregnancy at total population or age subgroups except the significant correlation of AFC with clinical pregnancy at 33-37 years old group. AFC was correlated with oocyte count and the number of fresh and frozen embryos in the ages group 20-32 years. In this age group, AMH was correlated with fresh and frozen embryos. AMH, AFC and FSH were correlated with oocyte count and the number of fresh embryos in age group 33-37 years. AMH was correlated with oocyte count and the number of fresh embryos in 38-43 years old group.
Conclusion: We concluded that the age is the superior predictor of IVF outcome and AMH and AFC are variable predicting markers of ovarian reserve in different age groups.
Objective: This study compares the value of FSH, AMH and AFC at the time of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment in different age groups.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 103 women aged 20-43 years candidates for IVF/ICSI cycle were recruited. FSH, AMH and AFC on day 3 of menstrual cycle were measured. The relationship of these measured markers with outcome variables (oocytes number, number of frozen/fresh embryo and chemical and clinical pregnancy) was assessed in different age groups (i.e. 20-32, 33-37 and 38-43 years).
Results: our results show that age was correlated with clinical pregnancy, oocyte count and fresh and frozen embryo (p<0.001). AMH, AFC and FSH were not correlated with clinical or chemical pregnancy at total population or age subgroups except the significant correlation of AFC with clinical pregnancy at 33-37 years old group. AFC was correlated with oocyte count and the number of fresh and frozen embryos in the ages group 20-32 years. In this age group, AMH was correlated with fresh and frozen embryos. AMH, AFC and FSH were correlated with oocyte count and the number of fresh embryos in age group 33-37 years. AMH was correlated with oocyte count and the number of fresh embryos in 38-43 years old group.
Conclusion: We concluded that the age is the superior predictor of IVF outcome and AMH and AFC are variable predicting markers of ovarian reserve in different age groups.
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1506-1512. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dem046]
2. Safarinejad MR. Infertility among couples in a population‐based study in Iran: prevalence and associated risk factors. Int J Androl 2008; 31: 303-314. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2605.2007.00764.x]
3. Malizia BA, Hacker MR, Penzias AS. Cumulative live-birth rates after in vitro fertilization. New Eng J Med 2009; 360: 236-243. [DOI:10.1056/NEJMoa0803072]
4. Nardo LG, Gelbaya TA, Wilkinson H, Roberts SA, Yates A, Pemberton P, et al. Circulating basal anti-Müllerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 1586-1593. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.127]
5. Te Velde ER, Pearson PL. The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update 2002; 8: 141-154. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/8.2.141]
6. BroerSL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 705-714. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.013]
7. Tremellen KP, Kolo M, Gilmore A, Lekamge DN. Anti-mullerian hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 45: 20-24. [DOI:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00332.x]
8. Mutlu MF, Erdem M, Erdem A, Yildiz S, Mutlu I, Arisoy O, et al. Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-Müllerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30: 657-665. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-013-9975-3]
9. Lekamge DN, Barry M, Kolo M, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Anti-Müllerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online 2007; 14: 602-610. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61053-X]
10. Broer SL, Dólleman M, Opmeer BC, Fauser BC, Mol BW, Broekmans FJ. AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17: 46-54. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmq034]
11. Li HW, Lee VC, Lau EY, Yeung WS, Ho PC, Ng EH. Role of baseline antral follicle count and anti-Mullerian hormone in prediction of cumulative live birth in the first in vitro fertilisation cycle: a retrospective cohort analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8: e61095. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0061095]
12. Eldar-Geva T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinowitz R, Markowitz E, Mimoni T, et al. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 3178-3183. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dei203]
13. Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006; 12: 685-718. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dml034]
14. Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles-implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 2414-2421. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dem204]
15. Broer SL, Mol BW, Dólleman M, Fauser BC, Broekmans FJ. The role of anti-Müllerian hormone assessment in assisted reproductive technology outcome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2010; 22: 193-201. [DOI:10.1097/GCO.0b013e3283384911]
16. Tarlatzis BC, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9: 61-76. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmg007]
17. Fallat ME, Siow Y, Marra M, Cook C, Carrillo A. Müllerian-inhibiting substance in follicular fluid and serum: a comparison of patients with tubal factor infertility, polycystic ovary syndrome, and endometriosis. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 962-965. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(97)81417-3]
18. Ng EH, Tang OS, Ho PC. The significance of the number of antral follicles prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian responses in an IVF programme.Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 1937-1942. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/15.9.1937]
19. Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Hum Reprod 1992; 7: 1342-1346. [DOI:10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137570]
20. Taylor R. Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. J Diagnost Med Sonography 1990; 6: 35-39. [DOI:10.1177/875647939000600106]
21. Eftekhar M, Rahmani E, Pourmasum S. Evaluation of clinical factors influencing pregnancy rate in frozen embryo transfer. Iran J Reprod Med 2014; 12: 513-518.
22. Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: anti-Müllerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2-6 mm). J Assist Reprod Genet 2009; 26: 319-325. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-009-9319-5]
23. Barbakadze L, Kristesashvili J, Khonelidze N, Tsagareishvili G. The Correlations of Anti-Mullerian Hormone, Follicle-Stimulating Hormone and Antral Follicle Count in Different Age Groups of Infertile Women. Int J Fertil Steril 2015; 8: 393-398.
24. Seifer DB, Baker VL, Leader B. Age-specific serum anti-Müllerian hormone values for 17,120 women presenting to fertility centers within the United States. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 747-750. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.10.011]
25. Tsakos E, Tolikas A, Daniilidis A, Asimakopoulos B.Predictive value of anti-müllerian hormone, folliclestimulating hormone and antral follicle count on the outcome of ovarian stimulation in women following GnRH-antagonist protocol for IVF/ET. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 290: 1249-1253. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-014-3332-3]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |