Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on July 21, 2005
Human Reproduction 2005 20(11):3141-3146; doi:10.1093/humrep/dei175
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/11/3141    most recent
dei175v1
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Goverde, A.J.
Right arrow Articles by Vermeiden, J.P.W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Goverde, A.J.
Right arrow Articles by Vermeiden, J.P.W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Further considerations on natural or mild hyperstimulation cycles for intrauterine insemination treatment: effects on pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates

A.J. Goverde1,2,3, C.B. Lambalk1, J. McDonnell1, R. Schats1, R. Homburg1 and J.P.W. Vermeiden1

1 Vrije Universiteit Medical Centre, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Division of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands 2 Present address: University Medical Centre Utrecht, Department of Reproductive Medicine, Division of Perinatology and Gynaecology, P.O. Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: A.J.Goverde{at}umcutrecht.nl

BACKGROUND: The high iatrogenic multiple pregnancy rate associated with intrauterine insemination (IUI) in hyperstimulated cycles is becoming less acceptable. Therefore we investigated data from an earlier prospective trial with regard to the specific question of whether the application of mild hyperstimulation in IUI cycles could be an alternative strategy for obtaining acceptable pregnancy rates while preventing a high multiple pregnancy rate, compared with natural cycles for IUI. METHODS: Pregnancy outcome of 310 natural and 334 mildly hyperstimulated cycles for IUI in 171 couples with unexplained or mild male factor subfertility was analysed on a patient level with random coefficient models. RESULTS: Pregnancy rates were similar: 35 and 39.8% per couple in the natural and mildly hyperstimulated cycles respectively (P = 0.60). Multiple pregnancies, all twin pregnancies, were conceived significantly more frequently in the mild hyperstimulation group (27% of the pregnancies) than in the natural cycle group (4% of the pregnancies) (P = 0.01). All multiple pregnancies in the hyperstimulation group were conceived in multifollicular cycles. Multifollicular development was strongly associated with the application of mild hyperstimulation only (odds ratio 21.14, 95% confidence interval 8.15–54.79). CONCLUSION: The application of a mild hyperstimulation protocol as an alternative to a standard hyperstimulation protocol for IUI does not result in higher pregnancy rates than IUI in the natural cycle, while at the same time multiple pregnancies cannot be avoided. Therefore, there is no place for the use of gonadotrophins in IUI treatment.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
P. Devroey, B.C.J.M. Fauser, K. Diedrich, and on behalf of the Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR)
Approaches to improve the diagnosis and management of infertility
Hum. Reprod. Update, July 1, 2009; 15(4): 391 - 408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
The ESHRE Capri Workshop Group
Intrauterine insemination
Hum. Reprod. Update, May 1, 2009; 15(3): 265 - 277.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
M.M.E. van Rumste, I.M. Custers, F. van der Veen, M. van Wely, J.L.H. Evers, and B.W.J. Mol
The influence of the number of follicles on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation: a meta-analysis
Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2008; 14(6): 563 - 570.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Rheumatology (Oxford)Home page
M. Costa and D. Colia
Treating infertility in autoimmune patients
Rheumatology, June 1, 2008; 47(suppl_3): iii38 - iii41.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
A. Demirol and T. Gurgan
Comparison of different gonadotrophin preparations in intrauterine insemination cycles for the treatment of unexplained infertility: a prospective, randomized study
Hum. Reprod., January 1, 2007; 22(1): 97 - 100.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum ReprodHome page
I. Cedrin-Durnerin, N. Massin, J. Galey-Fontaine, H. Bry-Gauillard, M. Roger, N. Lahlou, and J.N. Hugues
Timing of FSH administration for ovarian stimulation in normo-ovulatory women: comparison of an early or a mid follicular phase initiation of a short-term treatment
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 2941 - 2947.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.