Natural Cycle IVF: An Overview

© Springer India 2015
Gautam N. Allahbadia and Markus Nitzschke (eds.)Minimal Stimulation and Natural Cycle In Vitro Fertilization10.1007/978-81-322-1118-1_2

2. Natural Cycle IVF: An Overview

Alejandro Chávez Badiola  and Nadia Suarez1
(1)
Department of Reproductive Medicine, New Hope Fertility Center, Mexico, Mexico
 
 
Alejandro Chávez BadiolaMedical Director
Abstract
This book chapter gives an overview about the current status of natural cycle IVF in the literature. It points out indications, more precisely, for patient groups’ in which natural cycle IVF might be beneficial. Then, the most important advantages of this technique are explained, which above all, is the better endometrium, receptivity, compared with conventional IVF. The biggest disadvantage of natural cycle IVF is the high cancelation rate due to premature ovulation and low oocyte recovery rate. But, clinics with experience in this technique are happy to offer a more natural and more patient-friendly alternative to conventional IVF, which gives after, all reasonable results for low costs, especially, if patients are ready to wait a little bit longer for a positive result.
Keywords
Natural cycle IVFEndometrium receptivityPremature ovulationOocyte recovery rateCumulative pregnancy rateNatural approachLow cost

Introduction

The methods currently used in infertile patients are too extreme and too expensive, and alternative approaches are being sought, including minimal stimulation IVF, natural cycle IVF, and maturing human oocytes in vitro (Edwards 2007).
The first child born after IVF was conceived in a spontaneous menstrual cycle; however, natural cycle IVF has since been largely ignored, mostly due to the advances in ovarian stimulation. Years of efforts in research have been spent refining and enhancing the process of ovarian stimulation, having to deal as well with the known complications of multiple pregnancy and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (Luke et al. 2010). However, in the last few years, the definition of success has changed toward achieving one healthy pregnancy that can come from one good embryo, therefore aiming towards a more physiological approach, which includes less medication and higher quality in the laboratories.
In spite of the advances in ovarian stimulation, and the reassuring available data to this day regarding the long-term risks of ovarian or other hormone-dependent cancers, there are still a group of women that do not respond adequately to high-dose controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) or wish to have the most natural and physiological medical approach. So in a natural cycle, a lower-risk procedure is combined with a patient-friendly treatment.

Indications

A total of 795 cycles of unstimulated IVF were reported to SART in 2006 and 2007. Patients <35 years old represented 41 % of the total stimulated IVF cycles, compared with just 21.5 % of the unstimulated IVF cycles. Nearly half (45.5 %) of the unstimulated IVF cycles were performed in patients ≥41 years of age (30 % in patients aged >42 years). Conversely, only 15 % of stimulated IVF cycles were performed in patients ≥41 years of age (5.8 % in patients aged >42 years) (Gordon et al. 2013).

General Population

In a recent analysis of SART, it was revealed that only 13 and 16 % of the clinics in the USA performed unstimulated IVF in 2006 and 2007, respectively, which only represented <1.5 % of the total cycles initiated at those clinics (Gordon et al. 2013).
In patients with an expected good response, the use of COH increases the risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS); on the other hand, the reduced number of ultrasounds in a natural cycle, (two or three per cycle) as well as the absence of hormonal medication, can make this procedure less expensive and emotionally easier. And when time is an important issue for the couples, in a natural cycle, there’s no need for waiting due to the recovery that the ovaries sometimes need as consequence of the hormonal stimulation, and doing the fresh transfer also provides results within that same cycle. Another issue is endometrial receptivity; one possible mechanism of impairment is advancement of the receptive phase due to the high hormonal levels achieved during COH, resulting in embryo–endometrium asynchrony (Shapiro et al. 2011), but this issue will be addressed further in this chapter.
Nargund et al. (2001) performed one of the most representative studies, in 2001, with 181 cycles and with 48 % of patients being >35 years old. It reported 81.6 % successful retrievals, with a pregnancy rate of 12.7 % per cycle and a cumulative rate after four cycles of 46 %. In patients <35 years old, more than half the initiated cycles (54 %) reached ET, with a pregnancy rate per ET of 35.9 %. The implantation rate was statistically higher in unstimulated IVF cycles compared with stimulated IVF cycle in patients between 35 and 42 years of age, and there was no significant difference in patients aged <35 years. There were no pregnancies from unstimulated IVF in those >42 years of age. For all ages, the clinical pregnancy rates per initiated cycle, retrieval, and transfer were 9.6 %, 13.5 %, and 26.1 %, respectively. Similarly, for all ages (including >42 years), the live birth rates per initiated cycle, retrieval, and transfer were 7.3 %, 10.3 %, and 19.9 %, respectively (Gordon et al. 2013).

Low Responders

In general, poor-responder women are the patients who, during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF, show poor follicle growth despite the high dose of medication administered and low levels of serum estradiol. The incidence of poor-responder patients is approximately 10 %, and it is often related to patient age (Schimberni et al. 2009). The management of these patients is still a challenge for many physicians, despite a number of options in protocols available.
Poor responder patients are usually refractory to stimulation protocols; although many treatment strategies have been suggested, the results remain poor, and despite the high quantity of gonadotropins administered, their chances of pregnancy remain very low (Schimberni et al. 2009). Their treatment is generally approached in different ways, either by trying different stimulation protocols using high levels of gonadotropins, changing the dosages or the use of GnRH analogs or antagonists, trying IVF in a natural cycle, or as a last resort, suggesting egg donation. However, egg donation is not an option for many patients who wish to try every option in order to have a child with their own eggs.
In a recent study, Schimberni et al. (2009), performed 500 natural cycles in 294 women considered poor responders. Oocytes were found in 391 cases of oocyte retrieval (78.1 %). After the ICSI procedure, cleaving embryos suitable for transfer were obtained in 285 cycles (57.0 %), but no fertilization or cleaving embryos were obtained in 106 cycles (21.0 %). Pregnancy was observed in 49 cases, with a pregnancy rate of 9.8 % per cycle, 17.1 % per transfer, and 16.7 % per patient.
There have been conflicting results by other groups; in 2004, Kolibianakis et.al. performed a study of 32 patients with FSH ≥12 IU/l, with discouraging results; 32.1 % of the cycles did not result in oocyte retrieval; in 16.9 % in which oocyte retrieval was performed, no oocytes were obtained, and embryo transfer was performed in 19 out of 44 cycles in which oocytes were retrieved (43.2 %), and no ongoing pregnancy was achieved in 78 modified natural cycles (MNCs) (Kolibianakis et al. 2004).
The fact that a large group of patients do not accept oocyte donation poses difficulties in generalizing the study findings, as this is a personal decision related to cultural or religious characteristics, and, ultimately, after proper counseling the decision has to be made by the patient herself.

Endometrial Receptivity

The implantation window is defined as the limited period during which the uterus is receptive to implantation of the embryo. The presence of an endometrial “implantation window” has been demonstrated. During the receptive phase, the endometrium secretes proteins in a temporary fashion that will be recognized by the embryo and facilitates its growth and differentiation (Lessey 2000). The most cited factors involved in implantation include the formation of luminal epithelial “pinopodes” and expression of adhesion molecules and of cytokines.
Pinopodes were described originally in rats and mice as epithelial projections with pinocytic activity. In normally fertile women, pinopode formation and regression are closely related to serum progesterone concentrations. Pinopodes were demonstrated at the apical surface of the luminal epithelial cell during the implantation window (day 20 ± 22), therefore claimed as a possible receptivity marker, and because of a selective adhesion of blastocysts to pinopode-presenting areas, it emphasizes the importance of endometrial pinopodes as indicators of endometrial receptivity, suggesting that the apical surface of endometrial pinopodes participates directly in the adhesion process of the human blastocyst (Bentin-Ley et al. 1999).

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Jun 25, 2017 | Posted by in GYNECOLOGY | Comments Off on Natural Cycle IVF: An Overview

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access