DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20221006

Relation between anti-mullerian hormone and blastocyst rate in patients less than 35 years old

Nagwan Ahmed Bahgat, Ziya Denek

Abstract


Background: Anti-mullerian hormone is the most commonly used predictor for in vitro fertilization cycles outcome from the quantity point of view but not the quality.

Methods: The study included retrospective analysis of 247 cycles out come up to blastocyst rate. Patients included in the study were divided in to three groups according to Anti-Mullerian hormone value.

Results: The primary outcome included cycles outcome rates up to blastocyst rate, cycles without blastocyst, cycles with 100% blastocyst. While secondary outcome included oocyte number, number of mature oocyte, number of fertilized oocytes, number of cleaved oocytes, number of blastocyst. We found that the mean number of blastocyst is significantly affected by AMH in favor of group C, but the blastocyst rate was not significantly affected between the three groups group A (58.16%), group B (52.56%), group C (55.49%) with p value 0.621 which is not significant. The rate of cycles with 100% blastocyst rate was not significantly different between the groups, however the rate of cycles without blastocyst was higher in group B (13.58%) but it did not differ between the groups A (7.4%) and group C (7.9%). The difference was not significant between the three groups.

Conclusions: AMH can be a good predictor of IVF cycles outcome based on the ovarian yield and numerical outcome but it is not a good predictor of the blastocyst rate which could indicate the quality of the outcome of the cycles in patients 35 years of age or less.


Keywords


Anti-Mullerian hormone, Blastocyst, IVF

Full Text:

PDF

References


Bourdon M, Pocate-Cheriet K, Finet de Bantel A, Grzegorczyk-Martin V, Amar Hoffet A, Arbo E, et al. Day 5 versus Day 6 blastocyst transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(10):1948-64.

Glujovsky D, Blake D, Farquhar C, Bardach A. Cleavage stage versus blastocyst stage embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(7):CD002118.

Kamath MS, Mascarenhas M, Kirubakaran R, Bhattacharya S. Number of embryos for transfer following in vitro fertilisation or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 8(8):CD003416.

Ly KD, Agarwal A, Nagy ZP. Preimplantation genetic screening: does it help or hinder IVF treatment and what is the role of the embryo? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(9):833-49.

Palmerola KL, Vitez SF, Amrane S, Fischer CP, Forman EJ. Minimizing mosaicism: assessing the impact of fertilization method on rate of mosaicism after next-generation sequencing (NGS) preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2019;36(1):153-7.

McArthur SJ, Leigh D, Marshall JT, de Boer KA, Jansen RP. Pregnancies and live births after trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic testing of human blastocysts. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(6): 1628-36.

McArthur SJ, Leigh D, Marshall JT, Gee AJ, De Boer KA, Jansen RP. Blastocyst trophectoderm biopsy and preimplantation genetic diagnosis for familial monogenic disorders and chromosomal translocations. Prenat Diagn. 2008;28(5):434-42.

Aoyama N, Kato K. Trophectoderm biopsy for preimplantation genetic test and technical tips: A review. Reprod Med Biol. 2020;19(3):222-31.

Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. Embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(2):139-55.

Pocate-Cheriet K, Finet de Bantel A, Grzegorczyk-Martin V, Amar Hoffet A, Arbo E, Poulain M, et al. Day 5 versus Day 6 blastocyst transfers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(10):1948-64.

Glujovsky D, Farquhar C. Cleavage-stage or blastocyst transfer: what are the benefits and harms? Fertil Steril. 2016;106(2):244-50.

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(6):685-718.

Goswami M, Nikolaou D. Is AMH Level, Independent of Age, a Predictor of Live Birth in IVF? J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017;10(1):24-30.

La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(2): 113-30.

Bedenk J, Vrtačnik-Bokal E, Virant-Klun I. The role of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in ovarian disease and infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(1):89-100.

Feyereisen E, Lozano DHM, Taieb J, Hesters L, Frydman R, Fanchin R. Anti-Müllerian hormone: clinical insights into a promising biomarker of ovarian follicular status. Reprod Biomed. 2006;12:695-703.

Nelson SM, Klein BM, Arce J-C. Comparison of antimüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as predictor of ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation in good-prognosis patients at individual fertility clinics in two multicenter trials. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:923-30.

Arce J-C, La Marca A, Mirner Klein B, Nyboe Andersen A, Fleming R. Antimüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good-prognosis patients. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1644-53.

Gomez R, Schorsch M, Hahn T, Henke A, Hoffmann I, Seufert R, et al. The influence of AMH on IVF success. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016;293:667-73.

Revelli A, Biasoni V, Gennarelli G, Canosa S, Dalmasso P, Benedetto C. IVF results in patients with very low serum AMH are significantly affected by chronological age. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33: 603-9.

Wang JG, Douglas NC, Nakhuda GS, Choi JM, Park SJ, Thornton MH, et al. The association between anti-Müllerian hormone and IVF pregnancy outcomes is influenced by age. Reprod BioMed. 2010;21:757-61.

Arce JC, La Marca A, Mirner Klein B, Nyboe Andersen A, Fleming R. Antimüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good-prognosis patients. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(6):1644-53.

Sun XY, Lan YZ, Liu S, Long XP, Mao XG, Liu L. Relationship Between Anti-Müllerian Hormone and In Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer in Clinical Pregnancy. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020;11: 595448.

Reichman DE, Goldschlag D, Rosenwaks Z. Value of antimüllerian hormone as a prognostic indicator of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 2014; 101(4):1012-8.e1.

Kavoussi SK, Odenwald KC, Boehnlein LM, Summers-Colquitt RB, Pool TB, Swain JE, et al. Antimüllerian hormone as a predictor of good-quality supernumerary blastocyst cryopreservation among women with levels <1 ng/ml versus 1-4 ng/ml. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:633-6.

da Silva JB, Panaino TR , Tamm MA, Lira P , Arêas PCF, Mancebo ACA, et al. Prediction of metaphase II oocytes according to different serum Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels in antagonist ICSI cycles. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2016;20(4):222226.

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(5): 657-65.

Zhou SJ, Zhao MJ, Li C, Su X. The comparison of evaluative effectiveness between antral follicle count/age ratio and ovarian response prediction index for the ovarian reserve and response functions in infertile women. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(36):e21979.