波塞冬组3人群的临床研究进展——波塞冬组3人群临床特征分析
Clinical Research Progress of POSEIDON Group 3 Population—Analysis of the Clinical Characteristics of the POSEIDON Group 3 Population
DOI: 10.12677/acm.2025.1541211, PDF, HTML, XML,   
作者: 孙安邈*#, 张雅璇*:山东大学妇儿与生殖健康研究院/山东大学附属生殖医院,山东 济南
关键词: 波塞冬标准卵巢低反应辅助生殖技术POSEIDON Stratification Poor Ovarian Response Assisted Reproductive Technology
摘要: 波塞冬标准(Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number, POSEIDON)是将反应卵巢状态的质量和数量指标结合后对卵巢低反应人群(Poor Ovarian Response, POR)进行分组的方式。在此标准下,波塞冬组3人群被定义为:患者年龄 < 35岁且AFC ˂ 5枚,AMH ˂ 1.2 ng/mL。既往研究普遍认同年龄增大是导致卵巢储备降低最关键的因素,但波塞冬组3人群却表现出年轻但卵巢储备功能低下的特点,辅助生殖技术(Assisted Reproductive Technology, ART)助孕结局不佳。因此通过对该人群的治疗前人群特征、治疗周期特征、妊娠并发症等方面进行综述,以期更好的满足波塞冬组3患者的生育需求,达到更好的ART效果。
Abstract: Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) is a classification method that combines both quality and quantity indicators reflecting ovarian response to categorize women with poor ovarian response (POR). Under this standard, the POSEIDON Group 3 is defined as patients who are under 35 years of age, with an antral follicle count (AFC) of less than 5 and an anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) level of less than 1.2 ng/mL. Previous researches generally agree that advancing age is the most critical factor leading to decreased ovarian reserve; however, the POSEIDON group 3 demonstrates a unique profile of being younger yet having compromised ovarian reserve, resulting in poor outcomes in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Therefore, this review aims to summarize the pre-treatment characteristics, treatment cycle features, and pregnancy outcomes and complications of this population in order to better meet the reproductive needs of POSEIDON group 3 patients and improve ART success rates.
文章引用:孙安邈, 张雅璇. 波塞冬组3人群的临床研究进展——波塞冬组3人群临床特征分析[J]. 临床医学进展, 2025, 15(4): 2544-2550. https://doi.org/10.12677/acm.2025.1541211

1. 引言

卵巢低反应(Poor Ovarian Response, POR)是指卵巢对促性腺激素(gonadotropins, Gn)刺激反应不良,表现为卵巢剌激周期发育的卵泡少、血雌激素峰值低、Gn用量多、周期取消率高、获卵数少和临床妊娠率低[1]。针对POR人群较大的异质性,波塞冬(Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number, POSEIDON)专家组在2016年提出POSEIDON标准。基于年龄、抗缪勒管激素(Anti-Mullerian Hormone, AMH)、窦卵泡计数(Antral follicle count, AFC)及卵巢既往对Gn的反应,POSEIDON标准将POR人群分为4组[1]。第3组:年龄 < 35岁、AFC < 5枚、AMH < 1.2 ng/mL。POSEIDON组3患者在全部符合POSEIDON标准女性中仅占5.2% [2]。考虑到组3人群年龄较轻,生育需求较为迫切,但却因未获卵、无可移植胚胎导致的周期取消比例较高[3],从而在获得卵母细胞的过程中,多数患者需要经历重复的刺激周期,这会对患者的精神和心理造成一定负担。因此,研究波塞冬组3人群以改善其临床治疗结局从而满足患者的生育需求、减轻多次卵巢刺激带来的精神、身体和经济负担是十分必要的。现主要综述可能影响POSEIDON组3患者妊娠结局的人群及治疗周期特征指标,并对不同卵巢刺激方案在组3患者中的治疗效果进行讨论。

2. 人群特征

2.1. 年龄及卵巢储备

年龄增加对卵巢储备和妊娠结局的负面影响近年来已得到广泛证实,年龄的增长可能导致女性体内可以发挥功能的线粒体数量减少,线粒体供能不足等[4]。与30~31岁的女性相比,34~35岁女性的生育能力降低了14% [5]。但大样本研究表明POSEIDON组3患者的年龄集中在30.6 ± 2.9岁[6],且年龄小于30岁的患者占比高达51.0% [7],表现为极为年轻化的人群特征。但与此同时,POSEIDON组3人群却表现出低下的卵巢储备,AFC小于4的患者约占POSEIDON组3人群的60.7% [7],且人群的AMH可低至0.925 (0.685~1.075) ng/ml [8]

2.2. 体质指数

体质指数(body mass index, BMI)升高可通过改变如胰岛素和脂肪因子等的分布而对女性生殖功能产生不利影响[9],但BMI与卵巢储备的关系存在争议。研究显示[10]女性BMI增高与血清AMH水平下降有关(coefficient = −0.019, 95%CI [−0.027, −0.010], P < 0.001)。但也有分析认为[11],高BMI是通过抑制卵泡发生和干预卵巢功能实现的,而非真正降低卵巢储备。既往研究显示[2],符合POSEIDON标准患者的BMI集中在22 (20.0~24.5) kg/m2,显著高于非POSEIDON组的女性(P < 0.001),女性BMI是造成人群可归类于POSEIDON分组的相关因素(OR = 1.0373, 95%CI [1.0231, 1.0517], P < 0.0001)。但在对POSEIDON组3患者进一步研究时发现[12],POSEIDON组3女性与非POSEIDON组患者的组间BMI无显著差异(22.6 ± 4.0 kg/m2 vs. 22.5 ± 3.6 kg/m2, P = 0.087)且POSEIDON组3中BMI大于25 kg/m2的患者仅占总人群的12.50% [6]

尽管上述发现显示POSEIDON组3患者无显著BMI升高,但仍应警惕因体重增加造成卵巢储备降低的发生,进一步的研究对于全面地了解BMI和POSEIDON组3人群卵巢储备低下之间的关系至关重要。

3. 治疗周期特征

3.1. 获卵数

Parimala Chinta等的研究显示[13],与非POSEIDON患者相比,POSEIDON组3患者的获卵数显著减少(3 [2~4] vs. 6 [4~9], P < 0.001)。获卵数是活产率的积极预测因子[14],累积活产率(Cumulative live birth rate,CLBR)也随获卵数的增多而增加[15] (OR = 5.6, 95%CI [3.1~11.6])。期待对POSEIDON组3女性给予有效的预处理和制定个体化控制性超促排卵(controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, COH)方案提高每个促排卵周期的获卵数,以期观察其对妊娠结局的影响。

3.2. 双原核胚胎数和优质胚胎数

研究表明[16],POSEIDON组3女性每个取卵周期所获双原核胚胎数显著低于同年龄段卵巢储备正常且对刺激有反应的患者(4.47 ± 4.26 vs. 10.39 ± 5.09, P < 0.05),但两组患者表现出相近的受精率(77.91% vs. 78.61%, P = 0.31) [17],上述特征或许与其相对较低的获卵数有关。然而POSEIDON组3患者的优质胚胎数却显著低于对照组患者[16] (2.38 ± 2.59 vs. 5.32 ± 3.78, P < 0.05)。优质胚胎移植后的临床妊娠率和活产率均高于低质量胚胎且优质胚胎移植可以显著降低流产率和不良新生儿结局的风险[18] [19],鉴于胚胎质量与妊娠结局间的多重关联,获得可移植的优质胚胎是IVF/ICSI成功的重要因素,因此我们需结合移植策略与患者个体情况制定方案,增加POSEIDON组3获得优质胚胎的概率,以优化妊娠结局并降低风险。

3.3. 卵巢刺激方案

目前,对POR患者采用的常见常规治疗方案包括拮抗剂方案、长方案和超长方案等。以上三种方案在POSEIDON组3女性中的疗效不一。相较于长方案和拮抗剂方案组,应用超长方案促排卵的POSEIDON组3女性可获得更高的活产率(31.4 vs. 23.4% vs. 12.6%),且超长方案组的在获卵数(5.6 ± 3.6 vs. 4.6 ± 3.2 vs. 2.4 ± 1.7, P < 0.001)、可移植胚胎数(2.2 ± 1.6 vs. 1.6 ± 1.6 vs. 1.1 ± 1.1, P < 0.001)上均显著较高[20];而长方案在周期取消率、活产率等指标上优于拮抗剂方案[21]。与常规刺激方案相比,微刺激方案也可作为POSEIDON组3女性的促排卵方案之一,该方案虽然不能显著增加人群获卵数和可用胚胎数但却不会增加卵巢刺激引起的胚胎的非整倍体率的风险[22]-[24],且具有促排卵时间短、Gn药物用量小等优点。研究表明[25],尽管拮抗剂组的POSEIDON组3患者在获卵数(3.68 ± 2.22 vs. 2.75 ± 1.89 vs. 2.48 ± 1.92, P < 0.001)、可用胚胎数(1.75 ± 1.10 vs. 1.26 ± 1.11 vs. 1.28 ± 1.19, P < 0.001)上显著高于甲羟孕酮组和克罗米芬组,但POSEIDON组3人群的CLBR却不受促排卵方案类型的影响。此外,另有meta分析显示[26],微刺激方案的CLBR虽与常规刺激方案相近(RR = 1.15, 95%CI [0.73~1.81]),但微刺激方案下的周期取消率却显著增加(RR = 1.48; 95%CI [1.08~2.02])。目前的研究不能支持在POSEIDON组3女性中使用温和刺激方案代替常规方案[27]。鉴于POSEIDON组3女性对于卵巢刺激的良好反应性[7],期待多中心大样本的研究进一步探索POSEIDON组3女性适用的卵巢刺激方案,以优化治疗效果。

4. 妊娠结局及妊娠期并发症

4.1. 流产率

现流产发生与卵巢储备降低的关系不明,35岁以下女性的流产发生率为9.8%~15.8% [28]。有研究表明[29],低AMH水平低于1.9 μg/L不会显著增加早期妊娠丢失的风险(AMH < 1.0 μg/L; RR = 0.86, 95%CI: [0.68~1.10], AMH: 1.0~1.9 μg/L; RR = 1.01, 95%CI [0.86~1.27])。但也有部分研究表明流产率增加与低卵巢储备有关,血清AMH水平是一项独立于年龄和获卵数的IVF-ET流产危险因素(OR= 0.93, 95% CI [0.87~0.99]),患者的血清AMH水平处于0.08~1.60 ng/mL时,患者流产率显著增加[30]。年龄小于35岁且血清AMH浓度为0.5~1.96 ng/mL的女性行ART后的流产风险显著增高(OR = 1.24; 95%CI [1.06~1.44];P < 0.007) [31]。Parimala Chinta等的研究证实[13],POSEIDON组3女性的流产率与非POSEIDON人群相近(14.3% vs. 16.5%, P > 0.05)。POSEIDON各组与卵巢反应正常组间的流产率均无统计学差异(P = 0.059) [7]

目前关于卵巢储备降低对流产的影响尚无定论,各研究在卵巢储备降低和流产的定义上不能达成一致是导致该结果的原因之一。现有研究显示POSEIDON组3女性的流产率较卵巢储备正常的人群无统计学差异,这或许是因为POSEIDON组3患者的平均年龄小,卵母细胞质量尚不受到明显影响[32]所致。

4.2. 活产率

第1周期IVF/ICSI助孕治疗的POSEIDON组3人群的活产率(Live, birth rate, LBR)为29% [33]。相较于卵巢储备正常的女性,POSEIDON组3患者的LBR显著降低(30% vs. 34.7%, P = 0.004) [12]。但随着冻融胚胎移植的广泛应用,活产率仅能评估单次胚胎移植后的妊娠结局,在评估人群助孕结局方面已不够全面和理想,因此我们研究了POSEIDON组3女性的CLBR,以期对人群的治疗结局进行更综合的评估。

4.3. 累积活产率

CLBR是一项综合反映一次卵巢刺激后所有新鲜和冷冻胚胎移植的结局的良好评价指标。在对失访患者进行排除的情况下,POSEIDON组3患者的CLBR为35.07%~35.5% [7] [34]。也有研究考虑了仍有未移植的冻存胚胎或未返医院行后续治疗情况下患者的妊娠结局从而计算保守CLBR (假设此类中断辅助生殖治疗的患者的活产机会为零)和乐观CLBR (假设此类中断辅助生殖治疗的患者与继续治疗的患者有相同的活产机会),相较于前种计算方式,计算乐观和保守CLBR可以更准确而全面的评估患者助孕治疗的成效。POSEIDON组3患者第1个完整周期的累积活产率为14.73% [6],在≥6个完整周期后,乐观CLBR和保守CLBR的值分别达到58.12%和29.76%。相较于非POSEIDON组,POSEIDON组3女性的CLBR降低了约30% [35],POSEIDON组3女性的CLBR显著低于非POSEIDON患者(31.4% vs. 44.5%, P < 0.05) [12]。对失访人群的处理方式不同,是POSEIDON组3女性的CLBR数值彼此间差异较大的原因之一。

CLBR有助于帮助POSEIDON组3人群在助孕开始前对治疗的有效性和安全性进行评估,增强患者依从性,减少脱落,提高治疗效率[36]

5. 结语

POSEIDON组3人群为预期低预后人群,不易获得足够数量的卵细胞,所获双原核胚胎数和优质胚胎数均显著低于卵巢储备正常女性。目前选择何种COH方案以提高POSEIDON组3人群治疗的有效性仍然是临床工作者面临的一大挑战,但由于POSEIDON组3人群的发生率低及划分该人群的POSEIDON标准提出时间尚短,在COH方案的选择方面缺乏足够数量的大样本临床试验和随机对照研究来支持和贯彻个体化治疗。临床医生可在治疗前评估并告知POSEIDON组3患者可能的活产率,与患者充分沟通,提高治疗效率。今后仍需在严格执行POSEIDON标准的前提下对人群进行研究,以帮助患者获得更理想的妊娠结局。

NOTES

*共同第一作者。

#通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Alviggi, C., Andersen, C.Y., Buehler, K., Conforti, A., De Placido, G., Esteves, S.C., et al. (2016) A New More Detailed Stratification of Low Responders 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
[2] Esteves, S.C., Yarali, H., Vuong, L.N., Carvalho, J.F., Özbek, İ.Y., Polat, M., et al. (2021) Low Prognosis by the POSEIDON Criteria in Women Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Multicenter and Multinational Prevalence Study of over 13,000 Patients. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 12, Article ID: 630550.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.630550
[3] 刘东明, 陈立雪, 杨硕, 等. 波塞冬分类指标对预期低预后人群促排卵体外受精/卵胞质内单精子注射早期治疗结局的预测价值研究[J]. 中华生殖与避孕杂志, 2021, 41(4): 300-306.
[4] Weall, B.M., Al-Samerria, S., Conceicao, J., Yovich, J.L. and Almahbobi, G. (2015) A Direct Action for GH in Improvement of Oocyte Quality in Poor-Responder Patients. Reproduction, 149, 147-154.
https://doi.org/10.1530/rep-14-0494
[5] Steiner, A.Z. and Jukic, A.M.Z. (2016) Impact of Female Age and Nulligravidity on Fecundity in an Older Reproductive Age Cohort. Fertility and Sterility, 105, 1584-1588.e1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.028
[6] Li, Y., Li, X., Yang, X., Cai, S., Lu, G., Lin, G., et al. (2019) Cumulative Live Birth Rates in Low Prognosis Patients According to the POSEIDON Criteria: An Analysis of 26,697 Cycles of in Vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 10, Article No. 642.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00642
[7] Shi, W., Zhou, H., Tian, L., Zhao, Z., Zhang, W. and Shi, J. (2019) Cumulative Live Birth Rates of Good and Low Prognosis Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Single Center Analysis of 18,455 Treatment Cycles. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 10, Article No. 409.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00409
[8] Liu, L., Cai, B., Zhang, X., Huang, J. and Zhou, C. (2022) Euploid Blastocyst Rates in Patients from POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4 Using Propensity Score Matching. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 45, 374-383.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.03.001
[9] Silvestris, E., de Pergola, G., Rosania, R. and Loverro, G. (2018) Obesity as Disruptor of the Female Fertility. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 16, Article No. 22.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-018-0336-z
[10] Jaswa, E.G., Rios, J.S., Cedars, M.I., Santoro, N.F., Pavone, M.E.G., Legro, R.S., et al. (2020) Increased Body Mass Index Is Associated with a Nondilutional Reduction in Antimüllerian Hormone. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 105, 3234-3242.
https://doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgaa436
[11] Moslehi, N., Shab-Bidar, S., Ramezani Tehrani, F., Mirmiran, P. and Azizi, F. (2018) Is Ovarian Reserve Associated with Body Mass Index and Obesity in Reproductive Aged Women? A Meta-Analysis. Menopause, 25, 1046-1055.
https://doi.org/10.1097/gme.0000000000001116
[12] Yang, R., Zhang, C., Chen, L., Wang, Y., Li, R., Liu, P., et al. (2020) Cumulative Live Birth Rate of Low Prognosis Patients with POSEIDON Stratification: A Single-Centre Data Analysis. Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 41, 834-844.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.08.003
[13] Chinta, P., Antonisamy, B., Mangalaraj, A.M., Kunjummen, A.T. and Kamath, M.S. (2021) POSEIDON Classification and the Proposed Treatment Options for Groups 1 and 2: Time to Revisit? A Retrospective Analysis of 1425 ART Cycles. Human Reproduction Open, 2021, hoaa070.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa070
[14] Malchau, S.S., Henningsen, A.A., Forman, J., Loft, A., Nyboe Andersen, A. and Pinborg, A. (2018) Cumulative Live Birth Rate Prognosis Based on the Number of Aspirated Oocytes in Previous ART Cycles. Human Reproduction, 34, 171-180.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey341
[15] Drakopoulos, P., Blockeel, C., Stoop, D., Camus, M., de Vos, M., Tournaye, H., et al. (2016) Conventional Ovarian Stimulation and Single Embryo Transfer for IVF/ICSI. How Many Oocytes Do We Need to Maximize Cumulative Live Birth Rates after Utilization of All Fresh and Frozen Embryos? Human Reproduction, 31, 370-376.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev316
[16] Chen, D., Shen, X., Wang, L. and Kuang, Y. (2022) Cumulative Live Birth Rates for Low-Prognosis Women over 5 Years or 9 Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 22, Article No. 233.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-022-04511-7
[17] Xia, L., Zhou, X., Wang, X., Zhao, S., Wu, X., Xu, H., et al. (2024) The Role of Age and AMH on Cumulative Live Birth Rates over Multiple Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Study Based on Low Prognosis Patients of POSEIDON 3 and 4 Groups. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 22, Article No. 69.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-024-01243-5
[18] Aldemir, O., Ozelci, R., Baser, E., Kaplanoglu, I., Dilbaz, S., Dilbaz, B., et al. (2020) Impact of Transferring a Poor Quality Embryo along with a Good Quality Embryo on Pregnancy Outcomes in IVF/ICSI Cycles: A Retrospective Study. Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 80, 844-850.
https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1213-9164
[19] Zhu, J., Lian, Y., Li, M., Chen, L., Liu, P. and Qiao, J. (2014) Does IVF Cleavage Stage Embryo Quality Affect Pregnancy Complications and Neonatal Outcomes in Singleton Gestations after Double Embryo Transfers? Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 31, 1635-1641.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-014-0351-8
[20] Li, F., Ye, T., Kong, H., Li, J., Hu, L., Jin, H., et al. (2020) Efficacies of Different Ovarian Hyperstimulation Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders Classified by the POSEIDON Criteria. Aging, 12, 9354-9364.
https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.103210
[21] Huang, M., Tzeng, S., Lee, C., Chen, H., Huang, C., Lee, T., et al. (2018) Gnrh Agonist 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
[22] Baart, E.B., Martini, E., Eijkemans, M.J., Van Opstal, D., Beckers, N.G.M., Verhoeff, A., et al. (2007) Milder Ovarian Stimulation for In-Vitro Fertilization Reduces Aneuploidy in the Human Preimplantation Embryo: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Human Reproduction, 22, 980-988.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/del484
[23] Liu, X., Li, T., Wang, B., Xiao, X., Liang, X. and Huang, R. (2020) Mild Stimulation Protocol vs Conventional Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Poor Ovarian Response Patients: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 301, 1331-1339.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05513-6
[24] Morgia, F., Sbracia, M., Schimberni, M., Giallonardo, A., Piscitelli, C., Giannini, P., et al. (2004) A Controlled Trial of Natural Cycle versus Microdose Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analog Flare Cycles in Poor Responders Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization. Fertility and Sterility, 81, 1542-1547.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.031
[25] 张俊韦, 杜明泽, 孙丽君, 等. 三种促排卵方案在波塞冬低预后患者中的累积活产率分析[J]. 中华生殖与避孕杂志, 2022, 42(2): 117-124.
[26] Montoya-Botero, P., Drakopoulos, P., González-Foruria, I. and Polyzos, N.P. (2021) Fresh and Cumulative Live Birth Rates in Mild versus Conventional Stimulation for IVF Cycles in Poor Ovarian Responders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Human Reproduction Open, 2021, hoaa066.
https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa066
[27] Alviggi, C. and Conforti, A. (2022) Mild/Moderate versus Full Stimulation. Fertility and Sterility, 117, 664-668.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.02.022
[28] Magnus, M.C., Wilcox, A.J., Morken, N., Weinberg, C.R. and Håberg, S.E. (2019) Role of Maternal Age and Pregnancy History in Risk of Miscarriage: Prospective Register Based Study. BMJ, 364, l869.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l869
[29] Peuranpää, P., Hautamäki, H., Halttunen-Nieminen, M., Hydén-Granskog, C. and Tiitinen, A. (2020) Low Anti-Müllerian Hormone Level Is Not a Risk Factor for Early Pregnancy Loss in IVF/ICSI Treatment. Human Reproduction, 35, 504-515.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deaa008
[30] Tarasconi, B., Tadros, T., Ayoubi, J., Belloc, S., de Ziegler, D. and Fanchin, R. (2017) Serum Antimüllerian Hormone Levels Are Independently Related to Miscarriage Rates after in Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer. Fertility and Sterility, 108, 518-524.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.07.001
[31] Busnelli, A., Somigliana, E., Cirillo, F. and Levi-Setti, P.E. (2021) Is Diminished Ovarian Reserve a Risk Factor for Miscarriage? Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Human Reproduction Update, 27, 973-988.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmab018
[32] Bishop, L.A., Richter, K.S., Patounakis, G., Andriani, L., Moon, K. and Devine, K. (2017) Diminished Ovarian Reserve as Measured by Means of Baseline Follicle-Stimulating Hormone and Antral Follicle Count Is Not Associated with Pregnancy Loss in Younger in Vitro Fertilization Patients. Fertility and Sterility, 108, 980-987.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.09.011
[33] Leijdekkers, J.A., Eijkemans, M.J.C., van Tilborg, T.C., Oudshoorn, S.C., van Golde, R.J.T., Hoek, A., et al. (2019) Cumulative Live Birth Rates in Low-Prognosis Women. Human Reproduction, 34, 1030-1041.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dez051
[34] 黄愈, 施文浩, 师娟子. 波塞冬标准低预后患者的累积活产率分析[J]. 中华生殖与避孕杂志, 2020, 40(5): 361-366.
[35] Esteves, S.C., Yarali, H., Vuong, L.N., Carvalho, J.F., Özbek, İ.Y., Polat, M., et al. (2021) Cumulative 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
[36] Maheshwari, A., McLernon, D. and Bhattacharya, S. (2015) Cumulative Live Birth Rate: Time for a Consensus? Human Reproduction, 30, 2703-2707.
https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev263