波塞冬分类标准下卵巢低反应人群IVF/ICSI妊娠结局影响因素及其助孕策略研究进展
Research Progress on Influencing Factors of IVF/ICSI Pregnancy Outcomes and Assisted Reproductive Strategies in Women with Low Ovarian Response According to the Standard of Poseidon Criteria
摘要: 在辅助生殖技术项目中,卵巢低反应(preference response, POR)与周期取消和活产几率降低密切相关。2016年,波塞冬小组对POR群体做出了全新的分类,用“低预后”代替“低反应”,使此类群体更加细分,有助于制定个性化治疗方案,有利于改善患者的妊娠结局。本文将对波塞冬分类标准下POR人群IVF/ICSI妊娠结局影响因素及其助孕策略研究进展进行综述。
Abstract: In the assisted reproductive technology program, the ovaries’ preference response (POR) was asso-ciated with cycle cancellations and reduced odds of live birth. In 2016, the Poseidon group intro-duced a new classification of POR people, replacing “Low response” with “Low prognosis”, allowing for a more detailed breakdown of these groups and helping to develop personalized treatment pro-grammes, to improve the patient’s pregnancy outcome. In this article, we reviewed the research progress on the factors affecting the outcome of IVF/ICSI pregnancy and the assisted reproductive strategies of POR patients according to the standard of Poseidon.
文章引用:乔婉宁, 腊晓琳. 波塞冬分类标准下卵巢低反应人群IVF/ICSI妊娠结局影响因素及其助孕策略研究进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(2): 4699-4705. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2024.142650

1. 引言

随着不孕不育人口激增,辅助生殖技术(assisted reproductive technology, ART)帮助万千家庭圆了梦。卵巢低反应(poor ovarian response, POR)人数愈来愈多,其主要表现在对促性腺激素(gonadotrophin, Gn)反应不良,不能获得足够质量及数量的卵母细胞,体外受精周期取消率上升和活产率降低,已经成为ART面临的最大挑战之一 [1] 。2016年由Alviggi等 [2] 提出了波塞冬标准,这一标准根据年龄、卵巢储备标志物(AFC、AMH)及卵巢反应将患者分为4组:第一组:年龄 < 35岁而卵巢储备参数不低(AFC ≥ 5, AMH ≥ 1.2 ng/ml)但却出现预料外的低反性或次佳反应的病人;第二组:年龄 ≥ 35岁而卵巢储备参数不低(AFC ≥ 5, AMH ≥ 1.2 ng/ml)却出现预料外的低反应或次佳反应的病人;第三组:年龄 < 35岁而卵巢储备参数低(AFC < 5, AMH < 1.2 ng/ml)的病人;第四组:年龄 ≥ 35岁而卵巢储备参数低(AFC < 5, AMH < 1.2 ng/ml)的病人。波塞冬标准的重点在于从关注“低反应”到关注“低预后”,更侧重于结局导向的分析 [3] 。目前对于POR人群妊娠结局的影响因素尚未达成共识,本文着重对于波塞冬分类标准下卵巢低反应人群IVF/ICSI妊娠结局影响因素及其助孕策略进行综述。

2. 波塞冬分类标准下卵巢低反应人群IVF/ICSI妊娠结局影响因素

2.1. 年龄

随着社会发展及二孩政策的实施,生育延迟成为普遍现象,愈来愈多高龄女性需要辅助生殖技术的帮助。研究表明,年龄是波塞冬标准下的POR人群妊娠结局的独立影响因素,年龄越大活产率越低 [4] 。高龄一方面增加了配子染色体异常的机会,从而致使细胞/配子数量减少并且活力降低;另一方面卵母细胞在日常生物代谢中会产生活性氧(reactive oxygen species, ROS),ROS堆积可导致自发性线粒体损伤。因为ROS的增加以及卵母细胞对ROS的抵抗力下降,使其纺锤体失稳,染色体失常,端粒长度变短和卵母细胞生长发育潜能下降 [5] [6] 。卵巢中剩余卵母细胞数目的减少及质量的下降,使获卵数及形成的可移植的胚胎数明显减少,且POR人群取消周期人数增多。研究表明,囊胚整倍体率从35岁前的60%下降到40岁后的30%,并且随着女性年龄的增长,胚胎整倍体率每年下降2.4% [7] 。普遍认同,35岁是女性生育能力的分水岭。HOGAN等人 [8] 在一项大规模的回顾性研究中观察到,与接受年龄大于35岁供卵者卵母细胞的女性相比,接受卵母细胞年龄小于35岁的妊娠率显著增高。LEBOVITZ及其团队 [9] 在对体外受精周期进行反复调查时发现,41至44岁的女性中,妊娠的成功率非常低。另有多项研究表明当年龄 > 43岁,累积活产率骤然降低 [10] [11] ,2019年美国生殖医学协会(ASRM)指南中说明,这类人群结局可能极差 [12] 。因此对于>43岁POR患者,需与其充分沟通,建议其慎重决定后再行辅助生殖技术。

2.2. 体重指数

体重指数(Body mass index, BMI)是目前公认较为简便的方法来衡量肥胖的指标。关于BMI如何影响IVF/ICSI妊娠的最终结果,目前的观点尚存在分歧,但有部分研究指出,BMI增高对ART助孕结局有不利影响,可导致可利用胚胎数目少、高周期取消率、低临床妊娠率等 [13] [14] 。而另一研究则表示BMI对ART结局没有显著影响 [15] 。Li F等人 [7] 在一项针对波塞冬分类标准下POR人群的研究中发现BMI与活产率呈负相关,BMI的拐点为23.4 kg/m2。这与Esteves SC等人的研究结果相符 [16] 。Gong X [17] 等的研究表明肥胖者需要更多的促性腺激素(gonadotropins, Gn),但其在不同BMI组之间,没有观察到Gn初始剂量和使用时间方面差异,这与Sermondade等人一项对21个研究的Meta分析一致 [18] 。因此,超重有可能会影响POR人群妊娠结局,减轻体重可能会改善超重女性IVF/ICSI的结局。

2.3. 抗苗勒管激素

抗苗勒管激素(anti-Müllerianhormone, AMH),一种二聚体糖蛋白,其是由两个一模一样的72 KD单体通过二硫键连接而形成的,对于成年女性来说,AMH可以减缓卵泡的发育,避免卵泡过早耗竭。AMH水平在ART中用来评估卵巢储备功能、预测卵巢反应性及选择个性化治疗方案的作用已得到广泛认可。一项回顾性研究 [19] 发现AMH与POR女性的累计活产率呈负相关。还有一个项目涉及69,336个新鲜胚胎的移植周期和15,458个冷冻胚胎的移植周期进行的一项大型回顾性研究也有相似结论 [20] 。Morin等人 [21] 证明,每增加0.1 ng/mL AMH,将获得超过0.09个胚胎,AMH值高于0.52 ng/mL的患者比AMH值低于0.25 ng/mL的患者至少多获得0.62个胚胎。波塞冬标准以1.2 ng/mL的临界值测定AMH水平 [2] 。然而,许多研究发现1.2 ng/mL不应该是“绝对”临界值,例如在一项针对波塞冬预期低卵巢反应类别的患者的研究中建议使用AMH > 0.725的临界值来预测累积活产 [22] 。所以Royland Marpaung F等 [23] 建议每个进行IVF/ICSI治疗的实验室应在检查中确定自己研究中心的最佳AMH临界水平。

2.4. 窦卵泡数

窦卵泡数(Antral Follicle Counting, AFC)是早期用于预测ART中卵巢反应的指标之一。Chang等人 [24] 提出,卵泡循环周期内,早卵泡期窦卵泡直径应为2~9 mm,早期AFC可能标志着卵巢储备的真实水平。Bunnewell SJ等人 [25] 表明,低AFC水平会提高妊娠丢失率,从而导致活产率下降。同时,多项在波塞冬标准下人群妊娠结局的研究中也证明了AFC越高,活产概率越高 [15] [26] 。根据波塞冬的标准,“预期低反应”与“非预期低反应”区分的指标之一就是双侧卵巢AFC < 5 [2] ,这也揭示了AFC在POR患者的妊娠结果中所起到的核心作用。

2.5. 基础FSH

卵巢储备功能下降会减弱对垂体的抑制作用,刺激垂体分泌FSH,所以基础FSH (bFSH)水平升高与卵巢储备下降有关。因此,bFSH在生殖医学中被广泛用于评估卵巢储备及其反应。在一项对163名POR患者的分析中 [27] ,bFSH升高患者较正常患者的妊娠率显著降低。Bunnewell等 [25] 研究也发现,bFSH与活产率呈负相关。另一项研究发现,bFSH水平 ≥ 11 U/L时,活产率降低且流产率升高 [28] 。这些证据表明,卵巢反应性和临床结果会随着年龄和血清FSH的增加而恶化,因此这类患者需要尽快进行ART才能获得更多的受孕机会。

3. 波塞冬分组标准下POR人群的助孕策略

POR患者获卵数及其质量较正常人群低,从而导致其更难获得好的妊娠结局。临床医生需要对POR人群使用个性化的最适合的促排方案,最大可能的帮助其获得好的妊娠结局。

3.1. Gn剂量调整及LH的应用

对于卵巢储备功能处于正常状态的女性,当Gn的初始剂量在150~225 U时,她们的卵巢反应表现得相对较好,但POR人群有可能因FSH受体的多态性,对外源性FSH反应性欠佳,所以高于标准剂量的FSH可能有更好的卵巢反应。但是Baker等人 [29] 的研究表明,如果Gn总量大于3000 U,日用量大于300 U时,活产率却会降低。所以具体增加的剂量应参考前次促排卵的经验。卵泡的发育和卵子的成熟需要适量的LH,几项研究显示 [30] [31] [32] LH补充剂可能会补偿由于病人卵巢储备和年龄所造成的差异,以改善POR人群妊娠结局。尤其在36~39岁POR人群中获益明显 [32] 。

3.2. 促排卵方案的选择

3.2.1. 激动剂方案(GnRH-a)及拮抗剂方案(GnRH-ant)

一项国外研究表明 [33] ,在低龄患者中,GnRH-a长方案比GnRH-ant方案更具优势,具有更低的周期取消率和更高的着床率和活产率。李飞等 [34] 也有类似的结论。但在其他研究中发现GnRH-ant方案Gn天数和用量都比长方案有所减少,但这两个方案的妊娠结局相似,所以GnRH-ant方案花费更少,卵巢过度刺激风险更低 [35] [36] 。张燕等 [37] 人的研究显示,拮抗剂方案对于<35岁卵巢储备功能低下的病人来说是一种较为理想的治疗方法。这与一项针对波塞冬标准下POR人群的研究结论相一致 [38] 。2019年1月,ESHRE生殖内分泌指南 [39] 建议同等推荐GnRH-a及GnRH-ant,二者在对POR人群有相似的临床妊娠结局。

3.2.2. 微刺激方案

微刺激方案直接使用药物(克罗米芬、来曲唑等)抑制雌激素的负反馈,下丘脑释放的FSH和LH增加,从而可以减少Gn量,驱使卵泡发育,最后再进行IVF/ICSI。目前由于其使用药量较少、治疗方案简单且时间短获得了临床上的认可。李婉晴等人 [40] 在一项研究中发现,微刺激方案与GnRH-ant方案有相似的妊娠结局,但时间更短、经济成本更低。周莉娜等 [41] 发现与克罗米芬微刺激相比,GnRH-ant方案可提高获卵数及可移植胚胎数,使新鲜胚胎移植率上升。但克罗米芬微刺激方案能在一定程度上减少Gn的使用剂量及使用时间,因此能减少他们的经济投入。一项针对波塞冬4组人群的研究 [42] 也有相似结论。

3.2.3. 卵泡期高孕酮促排方案(PPOS)

PPOS方案主要基于以下理论:高孕酮水平可影响GnRH脉冲的频率、抑制过早的黄体生成素激增并抑制垂体功能。Zhang S等 [43] 认为根据波塞冬标准,在所有预后低下的ART患者中,尤其是≥35岁且卵巢储备功能差的患者,与PPOS方案相比,GnRH拮抗剂方案的累积活产率显著增高。Du等 [44] 则研究发现对于波塞冬2组,PPOS组的可用胚胎数量较高。在4733个周期Meta分析 [45] 中,我们发现PPOS方案比微刺激方案能增加优胚率和减少周期取消率。

3.2.4. 双重刺激方案

目前募集波理论是在研究卵泡发育的理论中最被关注的理论之一。该方案的原理是在黄体期增加一次卵巢刺激,使在同一个月经周期内可以取卵两次,和其他方案相比减少了获取同样数量卵子的时间。双重刺激方案有可能提升整倍体胚胎数进而改善妊娠结局。Polat等人 [46] 将12项针对POR患者应用双重刺激方案的研究进行了再次分析,其中多数研究发现双重刺激方案与传统方案进行比较,其报告的周期取消率显著降低,卵母细胞数、M-II卵母细胞数、囊胚和冷冻保存/可用胚胎数显著增加。目前,针对波塞冬分组标准人群比较的研究很少,双重刺激方案是否合适还需要大量的研究验证。

当前没有高等级的研究证据表明哪一种促排卵方案更适合卵巢低反应人群,不同的患者有不同的体质和反应,因此,临床医生需要结合患者个人情况、经济因素以及上一周期情况等,个性化给予促排方案并不断优化调整,以帮助其获得良好的妊娠结局。

4. 展望

对卵巢低反应人群的个体化管理一直是生殖医学界上的一个难题,影响POR人群妊娠结局的影响因素很繁杂,年龄、BMI、卵巢储备功能、基础内分泌、Gn用量、促排卵方案等均会影响其妊娠结局。波塞冬标准提出将该类人群根据其年龄、AFC以及AMH进行进一步的区分,将同一标准的人群归为一组,降低了同组间的异质性,并且用“低预后”代替“低反应”,更有利于个体化方案的制定,这是对POR患者研究和管理的进步。但是波塞冬标准提出时间还尚短,较高证据等级的研究较少,当前提出的推荐意见及该标准是否可行仍需大量临床研究来验证。在得到强有力的证据之前,对此类患者的管理,首先要综合其具体的情况,分析不同患者的个人情况,从排卵诱导前的预处理、促排卵方案的选择、Gn类型、剂量及时间、排卵扳机和辅助治疗等各个方面针对性的制定个体化的辅助生殖方案,以求最大程度的帮助POR人群改善临床妊娠结局。

参考文献

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] 朱夏萱, 田甜, 杨蕊. 卵巢低反应的发病机制与治疗进展[J]. 中华生殖与避孕杂志, 2023, 43(9): 968-973.
[2] Alviggi, C., Andersen, C.Y., Buehler, K., et al. (2016) A New More Detailed Stratification of Low Re-sponders to Ovarian Stimulation: From a Poor Ovarian Response to a Low Prognosis Concept. Fertility and Sterility, 105, 1452-1453.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005
[3] 张晨露, 潘宇, 龙亚玲, 等. 卵巢低反应人群的个体化控制性卵巢刺激的研究进展[J]. 中华生殖与避孕杂志, 2022, 42(1): 86-90.
[4] 李飞, 叶田, 孔慧娟, 等. 不同卵巢刺激方案下年龄因素对卵巢低反应人群新鲜周期活产率的影响[J]. 中华妇产科杂志, 2021, 56(7): 482-488.
[5] Sasaki, H., Hamatani, T., Kamijo, S., Iwai, M., Kobanawa, M., Ogawa, S., Miyado, K. and Tanaka, M. (2019) Impact of Oxidative Stress on Age-Associated Decline in Oocyte Developmental Competence. Frontiers in En-docrinology (Lausanne), 10, Article No. 811.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00811
[6] Tesarik, J., Ga-lan-Lazaro, M. and Mendoza-Tesarik, R. (2021) Ovarian Aging: Molecular Mechanisms and Medical Management. In-ternational Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22, Article No. 1371.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22031371
[7] Li, F., Ye, T., Kong, H., Li, J., Hu, L., Jin, H., Guo, Y. and Li, G. (2021) Predictive Factors for Live Birth in Fresh in Vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Treatment in Poor Ovarian Reserve Patients Classified by the POSEIDON Criteria. Frontiers in Endocrinology (Lausanne), 12, Article ID: 630832.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.630832
[8] Hogan, R.G., Wang, A.Y., Li, Z., Hammarberg, K., Johnson, L., Mol, B.W. and Sullivan, E.A. (2019) Oocyte Donor Age Has a Significant Impact on Oocyte Recipients' Cumulative Live-Birth Rate: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Fertility and Sterility, 112, 724-730.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.05.012
[9] Lebovitz, O., Haas, J., James, K.E., et al. (2018) The Expected Cumulative Incidence of Live Birth for Patients Starting IVF Treatment at Age 41 Years or Older. Reproductive BioMed-icine Online, 37, 533-541.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.08.014
[10] Xu, B., Chen, Y., Geerts, D., Yue, J., Li, Z., Zhu, G. and Jin, L. (2018) Cumulative Live Birth Rates in More than 3,000 Patients with Poor Ovarian Response: A 15-Year Survey of Fi-nal in Vitro Fertilization Outcome. Fertility and Sterility, 109, 1051-1059.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.001
[11] Serour, G., Mansour, R., Serour, A., et al. (2010) Analysis of 2386 Consecutive Cycles of in Vitro Fertilization or Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Using Autologous Oocytes in Women Aged 40 Years and above. Fertility and Sterility, 94, 1707-1712.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.09.044
[12] Ethics Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2019) Fertility Treatment When the Prognosis Is Very Poor or Futile: An Ethics Committee Opinion. Fertility and Sterility, 111, 659-663.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.01.033
[13] Sermondade, N., Huberlant, S., Bourhis-Lefebvre, V., Arbo, E., Gallot, V., Colombani, M., et al. (2019) Female Obesity Is Negatively Associated with Live Birth Rate Following IVF: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Human Reproduction Update, 25, 439-451.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz011
[14] 付贝贝, 漆倩荣, 谢青贞. 内膜准备方案及BMI对多囊卵巢综合征患者冻融胚胎移植结局的影响[J]. 生殖医学杂志, 2021, 30(11): 1427-1432.
[15] Whynott, R.M., Summers, K.M., Van Voorhis, B.J., et al. (2021) Effect of Body Mass Index on Intrauterine Insemination Cycle Success. Fertility and Sterility, 115, 221-228.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.07.003
[16] Esteves, S.C., Yarali, H., Vuong, L.N., Carvalho, J.F., Özbek, İ.Y., Polat, M., Le, H.L., Pham, T.D., Ho, T.M., Humaidan, P. and Alviggi, C. (2021) Cu-mulative Delivery Rate Per Aspiration IVF/ICSI Cycle in POSEIDON Patients: A Real-World Evidence Study of 9073 Patients. Human Reproduction, 36, 2157-2169.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab152
[17] Gong, X., Zhang, Y., Zhu, Y., Wang, P., Wang, Z., Liu, C., Zhang, M. and La, X. (2023) Development and Validation of a Live Birth Prediction Model for Expected Poor Ovarian Re-sponse Patients during IVF/ICSI. Frontiers in Endocrinology (Lausanne), 14, Article ID: 1027805.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2023.1027805
[18] Sermondade, N., Huberlant, S., Bourhis-Lefebvre, V., Arbo, E., Gallot, V., Colombani, M., et al. (2019) Female Obesity Is Negatively Associated with Live Birth Rate Following IVF: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Human Reproduction Update, 25, 439-451.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz011
[19] Tal, R., Seifer, D.B., Tal, R., et al. (2021) AMH Highly Correlates with Cumulative Live Birth Rate in Women with Diminished Ovarian Reserve Independent of Age. The Journal of Clin-ical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 106, 2754-2766.
https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgab168
[20] Tal, R., Seifer, D.B., Wantman, E., Baker, V. and Tal, O. (2018) An-timüllerian Hormone as a Predictor of Live Birth Following Assisted Reproduction: An Analysis of 85,062 Fresh and Thawed Cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System Database for 2012-2013. Fertility and Sterility, 109, 258-265.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.021
[21] Morin, S.J., Patounakis, G., Juneau, C.R., Neal, S.A., Scott, R.T. and Seli, E. (2018) Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Poor Response to Stimulation in Patients < 38 Years Old: A Quantitative but Not Qualitative Reduction in Performance. Human Reproduction, 33, 1489-1498.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey238
[22] Liu, L. and Zhou, C. (2020) Anti-Müllerian Hormone and Antral Fol-licle Count Differ in Their Ability to Predict Cumulative Treatment Outcomes of the First Complete Ovarian Stimulation Cycle in Patients from POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research, 46, 1801-1808.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.14269
[23] Royland Marpaung, F., Surya Priyanto, A., Ayu Kusumawati, F., Soehita, S. and Aryati (2023) Determination of Serum Anti-Mullerian Hormone Levels in a Low-Prognosis Women Treated In-Vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: A Cohort Study. International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine, 21, 255-262.
https://doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v21i3.13201
[24] Chang, M.Y., Chiang, C.H., Hsieh, T.T., et al. (1998) Use of the Antral Follicle Count to Predict the Outcome of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Fertility and Sterility, 69, 505-510.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00557-8
[25] Bunnewell, S.J., Honess, E.R., Karia, A.M., Keay, S.D., Al Wattar, B.H. and Quenby, S. (2020) Diminished Ovarian Reserve in Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Fertility and Sterility, 113, 818-827.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.11.014
[26] Chen, Y., Niu, A., Feng, X., Zhang, Y. and Li, F. (2021) Pre-diction of Pregnancy Outcome in Fresh in Vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Treatment in Patients with Poor Ovarian Reserve. Aging (Albany NY), 13, 18331-18339.
https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.203282
[27] Li, F., Lu, R., Zeng, C., Li, X. and Xue, Q. (2021) Development and Validation of a Clinical Pregnancy Failure Prediction Model for Poor Ovarian Responders during IVF/ICSI. Frontiers in Endocrinology (Lausanne), 12, Article ID: 717288.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.717288
[28] Atasever, M., Soyman, Z., Demirel, E., et al. (2016) Diminished Ovarian Reserve: Is It a Neglected Cause in the Assessment of Recurrent Miscarriage? A Cohort Study. Fertility and Ste-rility, 105, 1236-1240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.001
[29] Baker, V.L., Brown, M.B., Luke, B., et al. (2015) Gonadotro-pin Dose Is Negatively Correlated with Livebirth Rate, Analysisofmore than 650,000 Assisted Reproductive Technology Cycles. Fertility and Sterility, 104, 1145-1152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.1151
[30] Kol, S. (2020) LH Supplementation in Ovarian Stimulation for IVF: The Individual, LH Deficient, Patient Perspective. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation, 85, 307-311.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000509162
[31] Ntostis, P., Iles, D., Kokkali, G., et al. (2021) The Impact of Maternal Age on Gene Expression during the GV to MII Transition in Euploid Human Oocytes. Human Reproduction, 37, 80-92.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deab226
[32] Seshadri, S., Morris, G., Serhal, P., et al. (2021) Assisted Conception in Women of Advanced Maternal Age. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 70, 10-20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2020.06.012
[33] Huang, M.C., Tzeng, S.L., Lee, C.I., et al. (2018) GnRH Ag-onist Long Protocol versus GnRH Antagonist Protocol for Various Aged Patients with Diminished Ovarian Reserve: A Retrospective Study. PLOS ONE, 13, e0207081.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207081
[34] 李飞, 牛爱琴, 冯建兵, 等. 波塞冬分类标准下的不同卵巢刺激方案对卵巢低反应患者的疗效分析[J]. 中华生殖与避孕杂志, 2021, 41(9): 770-775.
[35] Wang, R., Lin, S., Wang, Y., et al. (2017) Comparisons of GnRH Antagonist Protocol versus GnRH Agonist Long Protocol in Patients with Normal Ovarian Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLOS ONE, 12, e0175985.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175985
[36] Dong, L., Lian, F., Wu, H., Xiang, S., Li, Y., Wei, C., Yu, X. and Xin, X. (2022) Reproductive Outcomes of Dual Trigger with Combination GnRH Agonist and HCG versus Trigger with HCG Alone in Women Undergoing IVF/ICSI Cycles: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Propensity Score Matching. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 22, Article No. 583.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04899-2
[37] 张燕, 包俊华, 姚海蓉, 等. 拮抗剂方案在卵巢储备功能低下患者中的临床应用及费效比[J]. 中华生殖与避孕杂志, 2018, 38(3): 228-231.
[38] A1-Jeborry, M.M., Alizzi, F.J. and A1-Anbari, L.A. (2020) A Comparison of 3 Different Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Protocols in Poor Women Responders Chosen According to Poseidon Criteria: Mi-cro-Dose, Standard Flare-Up, and Antagonist Protocol. International Journal of Women’s Health and Reproduction Sciences, 8, 147-152.
https://doi.org/10.15296/ijwhr.2020.23
[39] ESHRE Guideline Group on Ovarian Stimulation, Bosch, E., Broer, S., Griesinger, G., Grynberg, M., Humaidan, P., Kolibianakis, E., Kunicki, M., Marca, A., Lainas, G., Clef, N.L., Massin, N., Mastenbroek, S., Polyzos, N., Sunkara, S.K., Timeva, T., Töyli, M., Urbancsek, J., Vermeulen, N. and Broekmans, F. (2020) Erratum: ESHRE Guideline: Ovarian Stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Human Reproduction Open, 2020, Hoaa067.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa067
[40] 李婉晴, 洪名云, 唐志霞. 预期卵巢低反应患者不同促排卵方案的结局分析[J]. 国际生殖健康/计划生育杂志, 2022, 41(1): 1-5.
[41] 周莉娜, 陈威, 吴煜, 高晓红. 拮抗剂方案与微刺激方案对卵巢低反应患者体外受精-胚胎移植结局的比较[J]. 国际生殖健康/计划生育杂志, 2019, 38(5): 374-377, 388.
[42] 张加盟, 易建平, 韩宝生, 等. 拮抗剂与微刺激方案应用于高龄预期低预后患者临床结局分析[J]. 生殖医学杂志, 2023, 32(2): 214-219.
[43] Zhang, S., Yin, Y., Li, Q. and Zhang, C. (2021) Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates between GnRH-A and PPOS in Low-Prognosis Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study. Frontiers in Endocrinology (Lausanne), 12, Article ID: 644456.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.644456
[44] Du, M., Zhang, J., Li, Z., Liu, X., Li, J., Liu, W. and Guan, Y. (2021) Comparison of the Cumulative Live Birth Rates of Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation and Flexible GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Patients with Low Prognosis. Frontiers in Endocrinology (Lausanne), 12, Article ID: 705264.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.705264
[45] 黄馨月, 杨一华, 冯煜, 等. 卵泡期高孕激素状态下促排方案与微刺激方案在卵巢低反应患者应用效果的Meta分析[J]. 生殖医学杂志, 2019, 28(10): 1212-1218.
[46] Polat, M., Mumusoglu, S., Yarali Ozbek, I., Bozdag, G. and Yarali, H. (2021) Double or Dual Stimulation in Poor Ovarian Responders: Where Do We Stand? Therapeutic Advances in Reproductive Health, 15.
https://doi.org/10.1177/26334941211024172