Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
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 (10)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Caligara, C.
Right arrow Articles by Remohí, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Caligara, C.
Right arrow Articles by Remohí, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 16, No. 11, 2320-2323, November 2001
© 2001 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

The effect of repeated controlled ovarian stimulation in donors

C. Caligara1, J. Navarro1, G. Vargas1, C. Simón1,2, A. Pellicer1,2 and J. Remohí1,2,3

1 Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad, and 2 Department of Paediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Valencia University School of Medicine, Valencia, Spain

BACKGROUND: The effect of repeated controlled ovarian stimulation in young, healthy women who consented to donate their oocytes was assessed through a retrospective study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between March 1994 and February 2000, 284 donors consented to at least two controlled ovarian stimulation cycles, with four donors undergoing up to nine cycles. Through an intra-group analysis we studied the oocyte retrieval rate, controlled by the duration and doses of stimulation, as well as the interval between cycles, finding that the number of retrieved oocytes was maintained during repeated controlled ovarian stimulation cycles. The oocyte quality, assessed as fertilization, implantation and pregnancy rates, was similar through five repeated controlled ovarian stimulation cycles. The same result was obtained when the interval in days was analysed as a continuous variable or categorized in <90 and 90 days. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of the data suggests that successive stimulation cycles do not impair ovarian response in terms of quantity and quality of the oocytes obtained in this group of women. Furthermore, the interval between cycles does not influence the result of the stimulations.

Key words: controlled ovarian stimulation/IVF/oocyte donation

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Guardia Civil, 23 46020 Valencia, Spain. E-mail: ivi{at}ivi.es


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 ReprodHome page
W. Kramer, J. Schneider, and N. Schultz
US oocyte donors: a retrospective study of medical and psychosocial issues
Hum. Reprod., September 3, 2009; (2009) dep309v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
E. J. de Boer, I. Den Tonkelaar, C. W. Burger, C.W.N. Looman, F. E. van Leeuwen, E. R. te Velde, and on behalf of the OMEGA project group
The number of retrieved oocytes does not decrease during consecutive gonadotrophin-stimulated IVF cycles
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2004; 19(4): 899 - 904.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
F. Miyara, F.-X. Aubriot, A. Glissant, C. Nathan, S. Douard, A. Stanovici, F. Herve, M. Dumont-Hassan, A. L. Meur, P. Cohen-Bacrie, et al.
Multiparameter analysis of human oocytes at metaphase II stage after IVF failure in non-male infertility
Hum. Reprod., July 1, 2003; 18(7): 1494 - 1503.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Biol. Reprod.Home page
C. M.H. Combelles and D. F. Albertini
Assessment of Oocyte Quality Following Repeated Gonadotropin Stimulation in the Mouse
Biol Reprod, March 1, 2003; 68(3): 812 - 821.
[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.