Low-dose aspirin use does not improve in vitro fertilization outcomes in poor responders

Frattarelli, John L.; McWilliams, Grant D.E.; Hill, Micah J.; Miller, Kathleen A.; Scott, Richard T.

doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.007

Cited by 37 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some papers have reported some beneficial effects of aspirin from the day of embryo transfer [102, 104] others have failed to confirm these findings, also in poor responders [105–107]. Prospective randomized trials demonstrated that adjuvant therapy with aspirin and prednisolone did not improve uterine blood flow, implantation, and pregnancy rates [108].…”

Section: Alternative Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of Poor Responders in IVF: Is There Anything New?

Ubaldi

Vaiarelli²,

D’Anna³

et al. 2014

BioMed Research International

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the fact that in the last two decades an enormous number of papers on the topic of poor ovarian response have been published in the literature, so far it has been impossible to identify any efficient treatment to improve the ovarian response and the clinical outcome of this group of patients. The incidence of poor ovarian responders among infertile women has been estimated at 9–24% but according to recent reviews, it seems to have slightly increased. The limitation in quantifying the incidence of these patients among the infertile population is due to the difficulty of a clear definition in literature. A recent paper by the Bologna ESHRE working group on poor ovarian response has been the first real attempt to find a common definition. Current literature proposes new risk factors which could be the cause of a reduction in ovarian reserve, which also includes genetic factors. This represents the first necessary step towards finding applicable solutions for these patients. To date, there is a substantial lack of literature that identifies an ideal protocol for these patients. The use of the “Bologna criteria” and the introduction of long acting gonadotropin in clinical practice have given rise to new promising stimulation protocols for this group of patients.

show abstract

Section: Alternative Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of Poor Responders in IVF: Is There Anything New?

Ubaldi

Vaiarelli²,

D’Anna³

et al. 2014

BioMed Research International

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Les caractéristiques de ces patientes étaient : âge : 35 ans (23-42), FSH : 6,7 UI/mL (1,(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)5), LH : 4,4 UI/mL (0, [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]6) Parmi les patientes de bon pronostic, 60 ont été reprises en cycle stimulé et parmi elles, 13,3 % ont été à nouveau annulées. Ces patientes ayant eu deux annulations successives malgré un bon pronostic correspondent effectivement aux mauvaises répondeuses.…”

Section: Résultatsunclassified

“…Ces patientes ayant eu deux annulations successives malgré un bon pronostic correspondent effectivement aux mauvaises répondeuses. Les paramètres de ces patientes étaient : âge 36 ans (27-37), FSH 7,4 UI/mL (3,(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)9), LH 3,9 UI/mL (2,0-5,9), AMH 1,28 ng/mL (1,0-4,3), CFA 11 (10-17) avec un BMI à 22,3 kg/m2 Tableau 3 Issues des prises en charge en fonction du type de fécondation in vitro et du pronostic de la patiente. Parmi les patientes du groupe « bon pronostic », 26,6 % ont réussi à obtenir une naissance vivante à l'issue de cette nouvelle tentative après un cycle stimulé versus 11,1 % au sein du groupe « mauvais pronostic » (p < 0,005).…”

Section: Résultatsunclassified

“…Cette situation concernant neuf à 24 % des cycles selon les études [1,2]. Différentes prises en charge ont été proposées dans la littérature pour optimiser les réponses à la stimulation ovarienne chez les patientes ayant eu une annulation pour mauvaise réponse : la fécondation in vitro en cycle naturel modifié (FIVnm) [3], l'utilisation des antagonistes [4][5][6][7], des supplémentassions de la phase lutéale par de la LH [8], le prétraitement par pilule oestroprogestative [9], l'utilisation de l'aspirine à faibles doses (81 mg/j) [10], ou l'augmentation des doses de gonadotrophines [11,12], la prolongation de la stimulation ovarienne [13], ou l'utilisation de facteurs de croissance [14,15]. Mais, aucune de ces propositions n'a démontré sa supé-riorité dans le cas des mauvaises répondeuses [16].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Annulations en fécondation in vitro : mauvais pronostic, mauvaises répondeuses, ou variabilité de la réponse à la stimulation ? Analyse de 142 annulations

Lamazou

Fuchs

Grynberg

et al. 2012

Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproducti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…His research has included prospective clinical trials as well as basic science investigations conducted with the embryologists at his institution. (7,8). Another graduate of charter class has focused on medical education and is now the Residency Program Director at the University of Colorado.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%