Evaluating different strategies for poor ovarian response management: a retrospective cohort study and literature review

This retrospective study compares four different strategies for managing poor ovarian response (POR), namely, conventional stimulation (300 IUs) IVF-fresh embryo transfer (CONVF), mild stimulation (150 IUs) IVF-fresh embryo transfer (MILDF), mild stimulation embryo banking (MILDB), and embryo banking in natural cycles (NATB). In total, 796 POR patients were considered eligible. Statistical analysis revealed a shorter duration of stimulation and a lower required amount of gonadotropins in MILDF compared with CONVF (9.34 ± 1.17 versus 10.37 ± 1.14; 1402 ± 176 versus 3110 ± 343, P < 0.001). Comparing MILDF and MILDB, a higher number of available oocytes and embryos was observed in MILDB (2.36 ± 1.15 versus 6.58 ± 1.11; 1.72 ± 1.02 versus 3.51 ± 0.61, P < 0.001). Moreover, the MILDB presented with a lower number of required oocyte retrievals and a higher number of oocytes per oocyte retrieval compared with NATB (3.90 ± 1.56 versus 7.15 ± 1.80; 1.95 ± 0.74 versus 0.89 ± 0.20, P < 0.001). Data indicate that MILDF is equally efficient and associated with a shorter duration of stimulation and a lower required amount of gonadotropins compared with CONVF. Embryo accumulation may be more efficient compared with a fresh embryo transfer. MILDB may be a more efficient approach compared with NATB. To conclude, embryo accumulation following mild stimulation appears to form the optimal strategy for POR management. More studies are needed to verify these conclusions.