DuoStim Shows Comparable Efficacy but Better Efficiency than Two Conventional Stimulations in Poor/Suboptimal Responders Undergoing Vitrified Oocyte Accumulation for PGT-A
This study compared the DuoStim protocol with two conventional follicular phase stimulations for vitrified oocyte accumulation in poor-prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A. A retrospective analysis of 112 IVF cycles was conducted, with 66 cycles among patients undergoing DuoStim (DS-Group) and 46 amo...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Life |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/6/899 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849432529137827840 |
|---|---|
| author | Stefano Canosa Alberto Revelli Danilo Cimadomo Alberto Vaiarelli Gianluca Gennarelli Daniela Guidetti Andrea Roberto Carosso Laura Rienzi Filippo Maria Ubaldi Francesca Bongioanni |
| author_facet | Stefano Canosa Alberto Revelli Danilo Cimadomo Alberto Vaiarelli Gianluca Gennarelli Daniela Guidetti Andrea Roberto Carosso Laura Rienzi Filippo Maria Ubaldi Francesca Bongioanni |
| author_sort | Stefano Canosa |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study compared the DuoStim protocol with two conventional follicular phase stimulations for vitrified oocyte accumulation in poor-prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A. A retrospective analysis of 112 IVF cycles was conducted, with 66 cycles among patients undergoing DuoStim (DS-Group) and 46 among patients undergoing conventional follicular phase stimulations (DF-Group). The primary outcome was the time to live birth, while secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, live birth rate, and cumulative live birth rate. The final analysis included 66 patients in the DS-Group and 40 in the DF-Group, as 6 women (13%) in the DF-Group discontinued treatment after the first stimulation. Oocyte yield was similar between groups (8.4 ± 3.9 in DS-Group vs. 8.2 ± 4.0 in DF-Group, <i>p</i> = 0.80), as was the number of euploid blastocysts (0.9 ± 1.2 vs. 1.1 ± 1.1, <i>p</i> = 0.37). The cumulative live birth rate was 22.7% in the DS-Group and 25% in the DF-Group (multivariate odds ratio adjusted for maternal age and male factor: 1.05, <i>p</i> = 0.93). The time to live birth was significantly shorter in the DS-Group (81.5 ± 15.5 days) compared to the DF-Group (153.7 ± 78.2 days, <i>p</i> < 0.001). DuoStim showed similar efficacy but a shorter time to live birth. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-acf8a6ec6fa543c8bebcb67c67117ff3 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2075-1729 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Life |
| spelling | doaj-art-acf8a6ec6fa543c8bebcb67c67117ff32025-08-20T03:27:21ZengMDPI AGLife2075-17292025-05-0115689910.3390/life15060899DuoStim Shows Comparable Efficacy but Better Efficiency than Two Conventional Stimulations in Poor/Suboptimal Responders Undergoing Vitrified Oocyte Accumulation for PGT-AStefano Canosa0Alberto Revelli1Danilo Cimadomo2Alberto Vaiarelli3Gianluca Gennarelli4Daniela Guidetti5Andrea Roberto Carosso6Laura Rienzi7Filippo Maria Ubaldi8Francesca Bongioanni9IVIRMA Global Research Alliance, Livet, Via Tiziano Vecellio 3, 10126 Turin, ItalyIVIRMA Global Research Alliance, Livet, Via Tiziano Vecellio 3, 10126 Turin, ItalyIVIRMA Global Research Alliance, Genera, Clinica Valle Giulia, 00197 Rome, ItalyIVIRMA Global Research Alliance, Genera, Clinica Valle Giulia, 00197 Rome, ItalyIVIRMA Global Research Alliance, Livet, Via Tiziano Vecellio 3, 10126 Turin, ItalyIVIRMA Global Research Alliance, Livet, Via Tiziano Vecellio 3, 10126 Turin, ItalyGynecology and Obstetrics 1U, Physiopathology of Reproduction and IVF Unit, Department of Surgical Sciences, S. Anna Hospital, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, ItalyIVIRMA Global Research Alliance, Genera, Clinica Valle Giulia, 00197 Rome, ItalyIVIRMA Global Research Alliance, Genera, Clinica Valle Giulia, 00197 Rome, ItalyIVIRMA Global Research Alliance, Livet, Via Tiziano Vecellio 3, 10126 Turin, ItalyThis study compared the DuoStim protocol with two conventional follicular phase stimulations for vitrified oocyte accumulation in poor-prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A. A retrospective analysis of 112 IVF cycles was conducted, with 66 cycles among patients undergoing DuoStim (DS-Group) and 46 among patients undergoing conventional follicular phase stimulations (DF-Group). The primary outcome was the time to live birth, while secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, live birth rate, and cumulative live birth rate. The final analysis included 66 patients in the DS-Group and 40 in the DF-Group, as 6 women (13%) in the DF-Group discontinued treatment after the first stimulation. Oocyte yield was similar between groups (8.4 ± 3.9 in DS-Group vs. 8.2 ± 4.0 in DF-Group, <i>p</i> = 0.80), as was the number of euploid blastocysts (0.9 ± 1.2 vs. 1.1 ± 1.1, <i>p</i> = 0.37). The cumulative live birth rate was 22.7% in the DS-Group and 25% in the DF-Group (multivariate odds ratio adjusted for maternal age and male factor: 1.05, <i>p</i> = 0.93). The time to live birth was significantly shorter in the DS-Group (81.5 ± 15.5 days) compared to the DF-Group (153.7 ± 78.2 days, <i>p</i> < 0.001). DuoStim showed similar efficacy but a shorter time to live birth.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/6/899DuoStimoocyte accumulationfollicular phase stimulationoocyte vitrificationtime to live birth |
| spellingShingle | Stefano Canosa Alberto Revelli Danilo Cimadomo Alberto Vaiarelli Gianluca Gennarelli Daniela Guidetti Andrea Roberto Carosso Laura Rienzi Filippo Maria Ubaldi Francesca Bongioanni DuoStim Shows Comparable Efficacy but Better Efficiency than Two Conventional Stimulations in Poor/Suboptimal Responders Undergoing Vitrified Oocyte Accumulation for PGT-A Life DuoStim oocyte accumulation follicular phase stimulation oocyte vitrification time to live birth |
| title | DuoStim Shows Comparable Efficacy but Better Efficiency than Two Conventional Stimulations in Poor/Suboptimal Responders Undergoing Vitrified Oocyte Accumulation for PGT-A |
| title_full | DuoStim Shows Comparable Efficacy but Better Efficiency than Two Conventional Stimulations in Poor/Suboptimal Responders Undergoing Vitrified Oocyte Accumulation for PGT-A |
| title_fullStr | DuoStim Shows Comparable Efficacy but Better Efficiency than Two Conventional Stimulations in Poor/Suboptimal Responders Undergoing Vitrified Oocyte Accumulation for PGT-A |
| title_full_unstemmed | DuoStim Shows Comparable Efficacy but Better Efficiency than Two Conventional Stimulations in Poor/Suboptimal Responders Undergoing Vitrified Oocyte Accumulation for PGT-A |
| title_short | DuoStim Shows Comparable Efficacy but Better Efficiency than Two Conventional Stimulations in Poor/Suboptimal Responders Undergoing Vitrified Oocyte Accumulation for PGT-A |
| title_sort | duostim shows comparable efficacy but better efficiency than two conventional stimulations in poor suboptimal responders undergoing vitrified oocyte accumulation for pgt a |
| topic | DuoStim oocyte accumulation follicular phase stimulation oocyte vitrification time to live birth |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/15/6/899 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stefanocanosa duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta AT albertorevelli duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta AT danilocimadomo duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta AT albertovaiarelli duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta AT gianlucagennarelli duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta AT danielaguidetti duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta AT andrearobertocarosso duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta AT laurarienzi duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta AT filippomariaubaldi duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta AT francescabongioanni duostimshowscomparableefficacybutbetterefficiencythantwoconventionalstimulationsinpoorsuboptimalrespondersundergoingvitrifiedoocyteaccumulationforpgta |