Article citationsMore>>

Nelson, S.M., Yates, R.W., Lyall, H., Jamieson, M., Traynor, I., Gaudoin, M., Mitchell, .P, Ambrose, P. and Fleming, R. (2009) Anti-Müllerian Hormone-Based Approach to Controlled Ovarian Stimulation for Assisted Conception. Human Reproduction, 24, 867-875.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den480

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Comparison of the Predictive Value of Antral Follicle Count, Anti-Müllerian Hormone and Follicle-Stimulating Hormone in Women Following GnRH-Antagonist Protocol for Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection

  AUTHORS: Shahinaz H. El-Shorbagy

  KEYWORDS: AFC, FSH, AMH, Ovarian Response, GnRH Antagonist

  JOURNAL NAME: Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Vol.7 No.4, April 21, 2017

  ABSTRACT: Background: Prediction of ovarian response is one of the prerequisites for women undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment prior to the first controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycle. Predictive factors may be variable in patients pre-treated with oral contraceptives (OC) for scheduling purposes. Objective: To evaluate antral follicle count (AFC), anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) and basal follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) for predicting ovarian responses in patients under controlled ovarian hyperstimulation randomized to receive either oral contraceptives (OC) or no treatment (non-OC) prior to their first controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycle. Study Design: One hundred infertile women randomized to receive OC treatment or no treatment, prior to their first COS cycle; were stimulated with Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. During the early follicular phase (day 2) of the two subsequent cycles (cycle A & cycle B) sonographic (AFC, ovarian volume) and endocrine data (AMH, basal FSH) were recorded. Transvaginal ultrasound was performed for all patients to monitor the ovarian response. Total number of oocytes retrieved and number of generated embryos were recorded and patients were categorized according to retrieved oocytes as poor (oocytes 12). Result(s): AFC, AMH and basal FSH were lower in users than in non-users of hormonal contraception. Poor responders showed less number of oocytes retrieved and had lower AFC and AMH but a higher basal FSH level was recorded in both groups (OC and non-OC). Conclusion: The better predictive value of AMH or AFC, as a single test or in combination will prevent cycle cancellations due to too low or too high ovarian response. AMH in OC group is not affected by OC pretreatment and is superior to other parameters, while AFC is superior to AMH and basal FSH in non-OC group.