Value of follicular output rate in predicting ovarian response and pregnancy outcome of infertile patients

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1673-5250.2018.06.013

Objective

To investigate clinical values of follicular output rate (FORT) in predicting ovarian response and pregnancy outcome of infertile patients with in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET).

Methods

From January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2014, a total of 768 infertile patients who were treated with IVF-ET in Reproductive Medicine Center of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University were collected as research subjects. In this study, FORT was the ratio of the number of preovulatory follicles (PFC) with a diameter of 3 to 8 mm and the antral follicle count (AFC) of 14 to 22 mm on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) injection. According to FORT value, they were divided into 3 groups, low FORT value group (n=255, FORT value was lower than the 33rd percentile of the FORT value of all subjects, i. e. FORT value <0.36), middle FORT value group (n=277, FORT value was in the 33th to 67th percentile of the FORT value of all subjects, i. e. FORT value was 0.36 to 0.67), and high FORT value group (n=236, FORT value was higher than the 67th percentile of the FORT value of all subjects, i. e. FORT value >0.67). The general clinical data and related indicators of controlled ovulation hyperstimulation of 3 groups were collected by retrospective analysis. The age, body mass index (BMI), basal follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), AFC, total amount of gonadotropin (Gn), Gn use days, estradiol level on the day of hCG injection, PFC, number of ovums obtained, number of MⅡ ovums and number of embryos transferred were analyzed by one-way ANOVA analysis. The least significant difference(LSD) method was used to analyze AFC among three groups in further pairwise comparison. The duration of infertility, basic luteinizing hormone (LH) and basal estradiol levels were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis H rank sum test. Chi-square test was used to analyze the ratio of different causes of infertility, high-quality embryos rate, embryo implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. Pearson correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlation between FORT and number of ovums obtained, number of available embryos, number of high quality embryos, age, basal FSH level and basal estradiol level, respectively. Influencing factors of clinical pregnancy rate in infertile patients were analyzed by multivariate unconditional logistic regression analysis. The procedures followed in this study were approved by the Ethics Committee of Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University (Approval Number: 2017109).

Results

①There were no significant differences among three groups in age, BMI, infertile duration, ratio of causes of infertility and other general clinical data (P>0.05). ② There were no significant differences in basal FSH, basal LH and basal estradiol levels among three groups (P>0.05). The number of AFC of low, middle and high FORT value group groups were 15.2±3.2, 14.3±3.7 and 13.8±3.5, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (F=56.547, P<0.001). ③There were significant differences in estradiol level on the day of hCG injection, PFC, number of ovums obtained, number of MⅡ ovums, number of available embryos, double pronucleus fertilization rate, high quality embryo rate, embryo implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among three groups (F=64.974, 215.869, 26.344, 22.904, H=59.625, χ²=32.985, 16.532, 21.324, 14.319, 12.644; all P<0.001). However, there were no significant differences in total amount of Gn, Gn use days, and number of embryos transferred among three groups (P>0.05). ④Among all the infertile patients in this study, FORT had positive correlation with the number of ovums obtained (r=0.286, P<0.001), number of available embryos (r=0.327, P<0.001) and number of high quality embryos (r=0.252, P<0.001), but FORT had no correlation with age (r=0.021, P=0.063), basal FSH level (r=—0.019, P=0.169), basal estradiol level (r=0.023, P=0.088). ⑤ The results of multivariate unconditional logistic regression analysis on influencing factors of clinical pregnancy rate of infertile patients showed that FORT was the independent influencing factor on the clinical pregnancy rate of infertile patients (OR=1.023, 95%CI: 1.003-1.043, P=0.027).

Conclusions

FORT can be used as an effective index to predict ovarian antral follicles′ response to FSH and pregnancy outcome of infertile patients. However, because this study is just a retrospective study, the value of FORT in predicting ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in infertile patients remains to be confirmed by large, multicenter, prospective studies.

Key words: Fertilization in vitro, Embryo transfer, Follicular output rate, Ovarian response, Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, Pregnancy outcome, Antral follicle count, Preovulatory follicle, Infertility, female

表1 3组不孕患者一般临床资料比较

组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	BMI(kg/m²，±s)	不孕年限[年，M(P₂₅～P₇₅)]	不孕原因[例数(%)]
组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	BMI(kg/m²，±s)	不孕年限[年，M(P₂₅～P₇₅)]	输卵管及子宫因素	排卵障碍	男方因素	不明原因
低FORT值组	255	30.8±4.4	21.8±3.0	4(2～6)	164(64.3)	10(3.9)	75(29.4)	6(2.4)
中FORT值组	277	30.5±4.3	22.0±3.4	4(2～6)	172(62.1)	6(2.2)	88(31.8)	11(4.0)
高FORT值组	236	30.4±4.4	21.9±3.0	3(2～6)	151(64.0)	9(3.8)	72(30.5)	4(1.7)
检验值	?	F＝1.289	F＝0.417	H＝3.273	χ²＝4.464
P值	?	0.428	0.709	0.195	0.365

表1 3组不孕患者一般临床资料比较

组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	BMI(kg/m²，±s)	不孕年限[年，M(P₂₅～P₇₅)]	不孕原因[例数(%)]
组别	例数	年龄(岁，±s)	BMI(kg/m²，±s)	不孕年限[年，M(P₂₅～P₇₅)]	输卵管及子宫因素	排卵障碍	男方因素	不明原因
低FORT值组	255	30.8±4.4	21.8±3.0	4(2～6)	164(64.3)	10(3.9)	75(29.4)	6(2.4)
中FORT值组	277	30.5±4.3	22.0±3.4	4(2～6)	172(62.1)	6(2.2)	88(31.8)	11(4.0)
高FORT值组	236	30.4±4.4	21.9±3.0	3(2～6)	151(64.0)	9(3.8)	72(30.5)	4(1.7)
检验值	?	F＝1.289	F＝0.417	H＝3.273	χ²＝4.464
P值	?	0.428	0.709	0.195	0.365

表2 3组不孕患者激素水平及窦卵泡计数比较

组别	例数	基础FSH水平(mIU/mL，±s)	基础LH水平[mIU/mL，M(P₂₅～P₇₅)]	基础雌二醇水平[pg/mL，M(P₂₅～P₇₅)]	AFC(个，±s)
低FORT值组	255	7.9±2.2	4.2(3.1～5.5)	39(27～52)	15.2±3.2
中FORT值组	277	7.6±2.3	3.8(2.8～5.3)	39(23～55)	14.3±3.7
高FORT值组	236	7.7±2.1	4.2(3.4～5.6)	36(26～49)	13.8±3.5
检验值		F＝1.973	H＝8.056	H＝1.815	F＝56.547
P值	?	0.139	0.847	0.404	<0.001

表2 3组不孕患者激素水平及窦卵泡计数比较

组别	例数	基础FSH水平(mIU/mL，±s)	基础LH水平[mIU/mL，M(P₂₅～P₇₅)]	基础雌二醇水平[pg/mL，M(P₂₅～P₇₅)]	AFC(个，±s)
低FORT值组	255	7.9±2.2	4.2(3.1～5.5)	39(27～52)	15.2±3.2
中FORT值组	277	7.6±2.3	3.8(2.8～5.3)	39(23～55)	14.3±3.7
高FORT值组	236	7.7±2.1	4.2(3.4～5.6)	36(26～49)	13.8±3.5
检验值		F＝1.973	H＝8.056	H＝1.815	F＝56.547
P值	?	0.139	0.847	0.404	<0.001

表3 3组不孕患者促排卵指标、实验室相关结果及妊娠结局比较

组别	例数	Gn总量(U，±s)	Gn使用时间(d，±s)	注射hCG当日雌二醇水平(pg/mL，±s)	PFC(个，±s)	获卵数(个，±s)	MⅡ卵子数(个，±s)	可利用胚胎数(个，±s)
低FORT值组	255	31.8±12.0	9.6±1.6	2 830.1±495.9	6.3±1.9	7.4±3.5	6.1±2.3	4(2～7)
中FORT值组	277	30.5±10.8	9.7±1.5	4 631.7±981.8	9.1±2.8	10.2±3.8	9.3±2.5	6(4～8)
高FORT值组	236	30.3±10.1	9.9±1.4	5 824.4±1 234.7	10.3±2.4	11.5±3.6	10.4±2.7	7(4～11)
检验值	?	F＝1.504	F＝1.891	F＝64.974	F＝215.869	F＝26.344	F＝22.904	H＝59.625
P值	?	0.205	0.367	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
组别	例数	移植胚胎数(个，±s)	双原核受精率[%(n/n′)]	优质胚胎率[%(n/n′)]	胚胎种植率[%(n/n′)]	临床妊娠率[%(n/n′)]	活产率[例数(%)]
低FORT值组	255	1.8±0.5	61.6(1 328/2 156)	58.2(778/1 337)	22.0(121/549)	33.7(86/255)	76(29.8)
中FORT值组	277	1.9±0.3	64.6(1 909/2 955)	65.4(1 069/1 635)	24.7(140/566)	40.1(111/277)	104(37.5)
高FORT值组	236	1.9±0.4	66.4(1 770/2 665)	67.3(1 272/1 890)	32.6(166/509)	50.4(119/236)	107(45.3)
检验值	?	F＝0.465	χ²＝32.985	χ²＝16.532	χ²＝21.324	χ²＝14.319	χ²＝12.644
P值	?	0.204	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

表3 3组不孕患者促排卵指标、实验室相关结果及妊娠结局比较

组别	例数	Gn总量(U，±s)	Gn使用时间(d，±s)	注射hCG当日雌二醇水平(pg/mL，±s)	PFC(个，±s)	获卵数(个，±s)	MⅡ卵子数(个，±s)	可利用胚胎数(个，±s)
低FORT值组	255	31.8±12.0	9.6±1.6	2 830.1±495.9	6.3±1.9	7.4±3.5	6.1±2.3	4(2～7)
中FORT值组	277	30.5±10.8	9.7±1.5	4 631.7±981.8	9.1±2.8	10.2±3.8	9.3±2.5	6(4～8)
高FORT值组	236	30.3±10.1	9.9±1.4	5 824.4±1 234.7	10.3±2.4	11.5±3.6	10.4±2.7	7(4～11)
检验值	?	F＝1.504	F＝1.891	F＝64.974	F＝215.869	F＝26.344	F＝22.904	H＝59.625
P值	?	0.205	0.367	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
组别	例数	移植胚胎数(个，±s)	双原核受精率[%(n/n′)]	优质胚胎率[%(n/n′)]	胚胎种植率[%(n/n′)]	临床妊娠率[%(n/n′)]	活产率[例数(%)]
低FORT值组	255	1.8±0.5	61.6(1 328/2 156)	58.2(778/1 337)	22.0(121/549)	33.7(86/255)	76(29.8)
中FORT值组	277	1.9±0.3	64.6(1 909/2 955)	65.4(1 069/1 635)	24.7(140/566)	40.1(111/277)	104(37.5)
高FORT值组	236	1.9±0.4	66.4(1 770/2 665)	67.3(1 272/1 890)	32.6(166/509)	50.4(119/236)	107(45.3)
检验值	?	F＝0.465	χ²＝32.985	χ²＝16.532	χ²＝21.324	χ²＝14.319	χ²＝12.644
P值	?	0.204	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

表4 不孕患者临床妊娠率影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析结果

影响因素	B	SE	Wald值	P值	OR值	OR值95%CI
年龄	0.007	0.024	0.567	0.754	1.007	0.962～1.055
可利用胚胎数	0.032	0.063	0.183	0.611	1.033	0.912～1.169
优质胚胎数	－0.027	0.074	0.114	0.721	0.974	0.842～1.126
优质胚胎率	0.758	0.484	0.451	0.118	2.134	0.826～5.515
双原核受精率	1.108	0.860	0.059	0.198	3.029	0.561～16.350
AFC	－0.064	0.051	0.153	0.211	0.940	0.851～1.038
PFC	－0.158	0.093	7.149	0.088	0.843	0.703～1.010
FORT	0.022	0.010	8.735	0.027	1.023	1.003～1.043

表4 不孕患者临床妊娠率影响因素的多因素非条件logistic回归分析结果

影响因素	B	SE	Wald值	P值	OR值	OR值95%CI
年龄	0.007	0.024	0.567	0.754	1.007	0.962～1.055
可利用胚胎数	0.032	0.063	0.183	0.611	1.033	0.912～1.169
优质胚胎数	－0.027	0.074	0.114	0.721	0.974	0.842～1.126
优质胚胎率	0.758	0.484	0.451	0.118	2.134	0.826～5.515
双原核受精率	1.108	0.860	0.059	0.198	3.029	0.561～16.350
AFC	－0.064	0.051	0.153	0.211	0.940	0.851～1.038
PFC	－0.158	0.093	7.149	0.088	0.843	0.703～1.010
FORT	0.022	0.010	8.735	0.027	1.023	1.003～1.043

[1]	Vural B, Cakiroglu Y, Vural F, et al. Hormonal and functional biomarkers in ovarian response [J]. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2014, 289(6): 1355-1361.
[2]	李芳，李艳，蒋小蓉，等. 多个指标联合预测卵巢储备功能下降的临床价值及给与相应干预治疗后对妊娠率的影响[J]. 中国妇幼保健，2017，32(6):1259-1263.
[3]	Hsu A, Arny M, Knee AB, et al. Antral follicle count in clinical practice: analyzing clinical relevance [J]. Fertil Steril, 2011, 95(2): 474-479.
[4]	Broer SL, Dólleman M, Opmeer BC, et al. AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a Meta-analysis [J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2011, 17(1): 46-54.
[5]	张胜坤，曹义娟，张蓓，等. 体外受精-胚胎移植周期临床妊娠影响因素的研究进展[J/CD]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版)，2013，9(4):546-548.
[6]	Genro VK, Grynberg M, Scheffer JB, et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels are negatively related to follicular output rate (FORT) in normo-cycling women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation [J]. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(3): 671-677.
[7]	Racowsky C, Vernon M, Mayer J, et al. Standardization of grading embryo morphology [J]. Fertil Steril, 2010, 94(3):1152-1153.
[8]	Verhagen TE, Hendriks DJ, Bancsi LF, et al. The accuracy of multivariate models predicting ovarian reserve and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a Meta-analysis [J]. Hum Reprod Update, 2008, 14(2): 95-100.
[9]	Toftager M, Bogstad J, Bryndorf T, et al. Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1 050 first IVF/ICSI cycles [J]. Hum Reprod, 2016, 31(6): 1253-1264.
[10]	Nelson SM. Biomarkers of ovarian response: current and future applications [J]. Fertil Steril, 2013, 99(4): 963-969.
[11]	Gougeon A. Regulation of ovarian follicular development in primates: facts and hypotheses [J]. Endocr Rev, 1996, 17(2): 121-155.
[12]	Vrontikis A, Chang PL, Kovacs P, et al. Antral follice counts (AFC) predict ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes in oocyte donation cycles [J]. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2010, 27(7): 383-389.
[13]	Tal R, Tal O, Seifer BJ, et al. Antimüllerian hormone as predictor of implantation and clinical pregnancy after assisted conception: a systematic review and Meta-analysis [J]. Fertil Steril, 2015, 103(1): 119.e3-130.e3.
[14]	Amsiejiene A, Drasutiene G, Usoniene A, et al. The influence of age, body mass index, waist-to-hip ratio and anti-Mullerian hormone level on clinical pregnancy rates in ART [J]. Gynecol Endocrinol, 2017, 33(Suppl 1): 41-43.
[15]	邢俊，王俊霞，王玢，等. 根据卵泡输出率评估IVF中卵巢的反应性及结局[J]. 南京医科大学学报(自然科学版)，2014，34(2):174-178
[16]	Gallot V, Berwanger da Silva AL, Genro V, et al. Antral follicle responsiveness to follicle-stimulating hormone administration assessed by the follicular output rate (FORT) may predict in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome [J]. Hum Reprod, 2012, 27(4): 1066-1072.
[17]	Zhang N, Hao CF, Zhuang LL, et al. Prediction of IVF/ICSI outcome based on the follicular output rate [J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2013, 27(2): 147-153.
[18]	柯嘉敏，夏薇，苏宁，等. 卵巢反应性指标的临床研究进展[J]. 国际生殖健康/计划生育杂志，2018, 37(1): 62-65.

[1]	Haoyuan Yang, Jie Gong, Qingwei Zou, Hang Ruan. Current research status on adverse pregnancy outcomes of maternal and infant in pregnant women with asthma[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 522-529.
[2]	Tiantian Chen, Xiaodong Wang, Haiyan Yu. Pregnancy outcome of twin pregnancy with Gitelman syndrome: a case report and literature review[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 559-568.
[3]	Xiaoqing Ju, Yunjie Jin, Xiaoyan Wang. Influencing factors of uterine rupture during vaginal delivery in patients with scarred uterus after cesarean section[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 575-581.
[4]	Juan Gu, Qingqing Sun, Fangfang Hu, Yijuan Cao, Yujuan Qi. Clinical application of endometrial receptivity array to improve pregnancy outcomes in women with repeated embryo implantation failure[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 582-587.
[5]	Mengling Zhou, Zhiwei Xue, Shu Zhou. Changes in size of uterine myoma during pregnancy and its association with adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(05): 611-615.
[6]	Li Chen, Xueqin Lei, Lian Duan, Yue Zeng, Guolin He. Analysis of influencing factors of success of trial of labor after twice cesarean sections and its pregnancy outcomes[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(03): 287-294.
[7]	Ying Chen, Yanli Chen. Causes of heart rate variability and perinatal outcomes in elderly pregnant women[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(03): 295-301.
[8]	Danyan Feng, Xiaohui Cao, Yuxia Shi. Effect of serum adiponectin and placental leucine aminopeptidase levels on pregnancy outcome in pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Pediatrics(Electronic Edition), 2023, 19(03): 302-308.
[9]	Guohua Ren, Xiaoxiao Du, Shanling Hong, Shuai Shao. Change and significance of serum interleukin-22, hydrogen sulfide, and osteoprotegerin levels of patients with hypertensive acute kidney injury in pregnancy[J]. Chinese Journal of Kidney Disease Investigation(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(03): 150-155.
[10]	Yuyan Zhang, Bin Hu, Weihong Zhang, Mei Xu, Hui Zhu, Xinyue Yang, Hailing Liu. Relationship between echocardiography parameters and liver function during the second trimester of pregnancy and their predictive value for adverse pregnancy outcomes[J]. Chinese Journal of Digestion and Medical Imageology(Electronic Edition), 2023, 13(06): 499-504.
[11]	Xin Wang, Lin Liu, Zhejia Wen, Chunling Liu, Hong Zhang, Fang Lyu. Effect of stress exposure before pregnancy on subsequent pregnancy outcomes in mice[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(04): 431-437.
[12]	Xiaoxiang Wu, Bo Yang, Jingxuan Li, Fengling Zhang, Guihui Guo, Shaopei Zheng. Predictive value of umbilical artery ultrasonography parameters, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, and sFlt-1/PLGF ratio for adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients with pregnancy induced hypertension syndrome[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2023, 17(03): 266-271.
[13]	Lizi Zhang, Dunjin Chen. Adverse outcomes and longterm prognosis of placenta accreta spectrum disorders[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(03): 155-158.
[14]	Xiaofang Zheng, Songquan Wei, Zhenxuan Huang, Wenshi Wu, Guimin Li, Hongxia Zhang, Qingping Jiang, Dunjin Chen, Lin Yu. Pregnancy outcome and pathological changes of the placenta in preeclampsia with fetal growth restriction[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(02): 85-92.
[15]	Qunying Li, Liting Zheng, Yan Yu. Clinical analysis of 10 cases with a history of gynecological operation of uterine rupture in pregnancy[J]. Chinese Journal of Obstetric Emergency(Electronic Edition), 2023, 12(02): 98-102.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export