Influence of controlled ovarian stimulation protocols on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome patterns during in vitro fertilization programs

Different protocols of controlled ovarian stimulation have a significant influence on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) patterns in women who undergo in vitro fertilization programs (IVF).

The objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of different ovarian stimulation protocols on various clinical and laboratory parameters of OHSS, such as embryologic characteristics, hormonal changes, hemostasis, and IVF outcomes. The study was made on the basis of the MPUE “Center of Reproductive Medicine” (Minsk, Belarus) and included,

in total, 718 women who underwent IVF for infertility treatment. 103 patients developed OHSS and were divided into two groups based on hormonal stimulation protocols: Group 1 included 60 women who were stimulated with gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists protocol; Group 2 consisted of 43 women who were prescribed GnRH antagonists during ovarian stimulation.

In Group 1 (ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH agonists), we established significantly higher serum concentrations of estradiol and progesterone during IVF and more marked hemostatic shift towards hypercoagulation: statistically significant elevation of fibrinogen and D-dimes simultaneously with decrease in the primary anticoagulants (antithrombin III and protein С) functional activity. Also, Group 1 had a significantly higher incidence of the early form of OHSS and embryo transfer cancellation caused by a high risk of severe OHSS.

OHSS that has developed after the GnRH agonists protocol of controlled ovarian stimulation is associated with higher risks of complications and lower chances of successful pregnancy, which is explained by hyperestrogenic state, elevated progesterone levels, marked hypercoagulation, and higher incidence of early OHSS, which leads to the necessity of embryo transfer cancellation.

1. Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus “About validation of the National program of demographic safety in the Republic of Belarus in 2011–2015] of August 11, 2011, no. 357 (as amended by the Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus on September 09, 2012) (in Russian).

2. De Geyter Ch., Calhaz-Jorge C., Kupka M. S., Wyns C., Mocanu E., Motrenko T., Scaravelli G., Smeenk J., Vidakovic S., Goossens V. The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), ART in Europe, 2014: results generated from European registries by ESHRE: The European IVFmonitoring Consortium (EIM) for the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). Human Reproduction, 2018, vol. 33, no. 9. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30032255 (accessed 15 August 2019). https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey242

3. Calhaz-Jorge C., De Geyter Ch., Kupka M. S., de Mouzon J., Erb K., Mocanu E., Motrenko T., Scaravelli G., Wyns C., Goossens V. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Human Reproduction, 2017, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1638–1652. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew151

4. El Tokhy O., Kopeika J., El-Toukhy T. An update on the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Womens Health, 2016, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 496–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745505716664743

5. Pfeifer S., Butts S., Dumesic D., Fossum G., Gracia C., La Barbera A. [et al.]. Prevention and treatment of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a guideline. Fertility and Sterility, 2016, vol. 106, no. 7, pp. 1634–1647. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.048

6. Smith V., Osianlis T., Vollenhoven B. Prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a review. Obstetrics and Gynecology International, 2015, vol. 2015, art. ID 514159. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/514159

7. Fatemi H. M., Blockeel C., Devroey P. Ovarian stimulation: today and tomorrow. Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, 2012, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 392–397. https://doi.org/10.2174/138920112799362007

8. Shrestha D., La X., Feng H. L. Comparison of different stimulation protocols used in in vitro fertilization: a review. Annals of Translational Medicine, 2015, vol. 3, no. 10, art. 137. https://doi.org/10.3978/j.issn.2305–5839.2015.04.09

9. Humaidan P., Alsbjerg B. GnRHa trigger for final oocyte maturation: is HCG trigger history? Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 2014, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 274–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.05.008

10. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists versus GnRH agonist in subfertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Available at: https://www.cochrane.org/CD001750/MENSTR_gonadotrophin-releasing-hormone-antagonists-versus-gnrh-agonist-subfertile-couples-undergoing (accessed 07.10.2019).

11. Resolution of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Belarus “About some aspects of use of assisted reproductive technologies” of June 01, 2012, no. 54. National Legal Internet Portal of the Republic of Belarus. Available at: http://pravo.by/document/?guid=12551&p0=W21226260&p1=1 (accessed 20.08.2019) (in Russian).

12. Ashmita J., Vikas S., Swati G. The impact of progesterone level on day of hCG injection in IVF cycles on clinical pregnancy rate. Journal of Human Reproduction Science, 2017, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 265–270. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.223278