Assessment of Natural vs. Mildly Stimulated Cycles in Women with Low Ovarian Reserve Undergoing IVF Treatment - Study

Assisted reproduction technology (ART) is the main method used to address infertility and facilitate conception. Recent study compared the pregnancy outcomes and embryo quality between natural cycles and mildly stimulated cycles in women with low ovarian reserve undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.

The main findings of the study are: 1. The pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the natural cycle group compared to the mildly stimulated cycle group (51.8% vs. 40.1%, p=0.046). 2. Natural cycles exhibited higher rates of available embryos (84.1% vs. 78.6%, p=0.040), high-quality embryos (61.8% vs. 53.2%, p=0.008), and utilization of oocytes (73% vs. 65%, p=0.001) compared to mildly stimulated cycles. 3. In natural cycles, 94.9% of oocyte retrievals were performed between 7:00 and 19:00, and 96.4% of oocyte retrievals in natural cycles with high-quality embryos occurred during this timeframe. This suggests that appropriately timed oocyte retrieval during natural cycles may be crucial for obtaining good quality embryos. 4. There were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes and embryo quality between patients with repeated failed IVF cycles and those undergoing their first IVF cycle in the natural cycle group. This indicates that natural cycles may be a viable option for patients with low ovarian reserve who have experienced repeated IVF failures.

In conclusion, the study suggests that natural cycles, with proper timing of oocyte retrieval, may present a favorable approach for women with low ovarian reserve undergoing IVF treatment compared to mildly stimulated cycles. The findings highlight the potential benefits of natural cycle IVF in this patient population.

Key Points

Here are the 6 key points from the research paper:

1. The pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the natural cycle group compared to the mildly stimulated cycle group (51.8% vs. 40.1%, p=0.046).

2. Natural cycles exhibited higher rates of available embryos (84.1% vs. 78.6%, p=0.040), high-quality embryos (61.8% vs. 53.2%, p=0.008), and utilization of oocytes (73% vs. 65%, p=0.001) compared to mildly stimulated cycles.

3. In natural cycles, 94.9% of oocyte retrievals were performed between 7:00 and 19:00, and 96.4% of oocyte retrievals in natural cycles with high-quality embryos occurred during this timeframe, suggesting that appropriately timed oocyte retrieval during natural cycles may be crucial for obtaining good quality embryos.

4. There were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes and embryo quality between patients with repeated failed IVF cycles and those undergoing their first IVF cycle in the natural cycle group, indicating that natural cycles may be a viable option for patients with low ovarian reserve who have experienced repeated IVF failures.

5. The study suggests that natural cycles, with proper timing of oocyte retrieval, may present a favorable approach for women with low ovarian reserve undergoing IVF treatment compared to mildly stimulated cycles.

6. The findings highlight the potential benefits of natural cycle IVF in the patient population with low ovarian reserve.

Reference –

Rui-Ying Yuan, Sen Li, Xie Feng, Xiao-Long Li, Xiao-ting Lin, Fu-min Gao, Hai-Jing Zhu, Yong-shi Li, Yan-chu Li & Xiang-Hong Ou (2024) Comparison of embryo qualityand pregnancy outcomes for patients with low ovarian reserve in natural cycles and mildly mstimulated cycles: a cohort study, Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 44:1, 2303693, DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2024.2303693