4.7 Article

Oocyte quality in patients with severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome:: a self-controlled clinical study

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 82, Issue 4, Pages 827-833

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.02.131

Keywords

oocyte quality; ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; PCOS; pregnancy rate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To investigate the oocyte quality in patients with severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Design: Self-controlled clinical study. Setting: University teaching hospital. Patient(s): Twenty-two patients from our assisted reproductive technology (ART) program who developed severe OHSS during their first controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) (OHSS cycles) during a period of 10 years and had a second ART attempt performed in our center in which OHSS did not develop (control cycles). Intervention(s): IVF and ICSI. Main Outcome Measure(s): Oocyte yield and quality, fertilization rate, embryo yield and quality, implantation rate, and pregnancy rate. Result(s): The total number of oocytes retrieved and the mean number of metaphase II oocytes were significantly higher in patients with OHSS than in control cycles. Fertilization rates were similar in both groups of ART cycles, and thus the number of viable embryos were significantly higher in OHSS cycles. Implantation and pregnancy rates were similar in OHSS and control cycles. Oocyte and embryo yield and quality were similar in early and late OHSS. Oocyte yield and quality, embryological outcome, and implantation and pregnancy rates were similar in patients with and without polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) both in cycles developing OHSS and control cycles. Conclusion(s): Oocyte quality is not compromised in severe OHSS cycles irrespective of whether patients had or did not have PCOS. (C)2004 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available