The relationship between thyroid autoimmunity and poor response to ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization women with infertility

Introduction: Thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) is the most common autoimmune disorder. Patients with TAI are usually euthyroid, and the presence of anti-thyroid peroxidase (anti-TPO) in patients with or without thyroid dysfunction is associated with infertility, recurrent embryo implantation failure, and early pregnancy loss. We aimed to investigate the relationship between low ovarian reserve, pregnancy outcomes, and TAI. Material and methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) patients between 2010 and 2018. All patients (n = 1400) for whom thyroid autoantibody testing was requested were detected. A study group was formed from patients with anti-TPO positivity (n = 363). The control group (n = 555) comprised euthyroid anti-TPO negative patients matched to the study group regarding age and body mass index (BMI). Results: Mean serum TSH value was 2.35 ± 1.70 mIU/mL in anti-TPO-positive patients and 1.81 ± 1.2 mIU/mL in controls, and the difference was significant (p < 0.05). Total dose of gonadotropins used in ovulation induction in anti-TPO-positive and control patients were 3000 IU and 2700 IU, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The number of metaphase 2 oocytes was significantly lower in the anti-TPO-positive group (p < 0.05). Embryo transfer number and embryo grade were significantly lower in the anti-TPO-positive group (p < 0.01). Poor ovarian response was significantly higher in anti-TPO-positive patients (40%) as compared to anti-TPO-negative controls (30%) (p < 0.01). Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the anti-TPO-positive group (29.2%), as compared to the antibody-negative group (38.4%) (p < 0.01). Conclusions: There are controversial data regarding the impact of antithyroid antibodies on ovarian reserve and pregnancy outcome after IVF treatment. The results of this study indicate that there was a relationship between TAI and poor ovarian response, and that TAI adversely affects IVF outcomes. Further investigations are required to explore the mechanism behind these effects

Dual trigger with the combination of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and standard dose of human chorionic gonadotropin improves in vitro fertilisation outcomes in poor ovarian responders

The study aimed to evaluate the impact of the dual trigger with the combination of GnRH agonist and standard dose of recombinant hCG on IVF outcomes in poor ovarian responders with GnRH antagonist protocol. 1283 cycles of 1010 poor responder patients according to Bologna criteria were retrospectively analysed in terms of final oocyte maturation: dual trigger group (250 μg hCG + 0.2 mg triptorelin) or standard group (250 μg hCG). Primary outcome measures were the number of retrieved and mature oocytes. The secondary outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates. The number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes, and the top-quality embryos transferred were significantly higher in the dual trigger group (p < .001). Fertilisation rates (73.6% vs 69.6%, p = .009), implantation rates (18.7% vs 14.6, p = .039), clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer (27.5% vs. 19.9%, p = .010) and live birth rate per embryo transfer (21.6% vs. 14.9%, p = .011) were also significantly higher in the dual trigger group as compared to the hCG trigger group. The usage of dual trigger with a GnRH agonist and a standard dosage of hCG could improve clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates in poor ovarian responders undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles.IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? Dual trigger with standard dose of hCG has been the subject of trials in normal responders to optimise IVF outcomes. The results of these studies showed significant improvements in implantation and pregnancy rates with an increase in the number of mature oocytes retrieved. As a result, dual trigger has become a popular ovulation trigger option in GnRH antagonist cycles. What do the results of this study add? There is limited data about the use of dual trigger in poor ovarian responders (PORs). According to our study, increasing the number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes, the number of fertilised oocytes, the number of transferred embryos and top quality embryos transferred by using dual trigger in patients with PORs have a positive impact on pregnancy outcomes. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? These findings implies potential advantages of dual trigger usage for improving IVF outcomes in PORs. With large sample sized prospective randomised trials, dual trigger with combination of GnRHa and a standard dose of hCG might replace the traditional ovulation trigger with hCG in PORs

Sezaryen skarında molar gebelik: Olgu sunumu

Cesarean scar ectopic pregnancies and molar pregnancies are two very rare obstetric pathologies. In both cases, serious morbidities are involved that require careful management. The coexistence of the two clinical conditions is far less common and there are a limited number of cases in the literature. In this case report, a 34-year-old patient with previous cesarean section was diagnosed as having a molar pregnancy in a cesarean scar through ultrasonography. The patient was asymptomatic at that time. Ultrasonography revealed a protruding mass at the cesarean section and her human chorionic gonadotropin level was measured as 59.705 mIU/mL. Due to the risk of severe bleeding, cesarean section scar excision and revision were performed via laparotomy after counselling the patient. Removal of all trophoblastic tissue was observed as a result of the frozen pathology and the operation was terminated. After the definite pathology result came as a complete molar pregnancy, the patient was followed up according to molar pregnancy follow-up protocols and cured completely. Despite the alternative treatment options (methotrexate application, curettage, uterine artery embolization) in such patients, the decision for surgery was made after counselling the patient. In this very rare clinical condition, patients should be closely monitored and the appropriate treatment option should be applied as soon as possible, taking into consideration the bleeding risks of both pathologies

Impact of timing on wound dressing removal after caesarean delivery: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

We compared wound dressing removal at 24 hours versus 48 hours following low-risk caesarean deliveries. This multicentre, randomised, controlled study included patients 18−44 years of age with low-risk term, singleton pregnancies. The randomisation was done weekly. Scheduled caesarean deliveries without labour were included. For comparison, the Additional treatment, Serous discharge, Erythema, Purulent exudate, Separation of deep tissues, Isolation of bacteria, Stay in hospital > 14 days (ASEPSIS) score for wound healing assessment was modified. The absolute scores were obtained based on a one-day reading rather than the five-day reading used in ASEPSIS. Zero (“0”) was assigned as a complete healing. Higher scores were associated with more severe disruption of healing. The patients were enrolled between March 2015 and February 2017. The demographics were not statistically different. The wound scoring was similar in the groups at discharge and first-week evaluation. At the six weeks post-surgery, the wound scoring was significantly less in the 48-hour (3.9%) versus the 24-hour group (9%; p = .002). Dressing removal at 48 hours had a lower scoring in the low-risk population with scheduled caesarean deliveries.IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? Surgical dressings are used to provide suitable conditions to heal caesarean incisions. There has been a limited number of studies on the evaluation of ideal timing on wound dressing removal after a caesarean delivery. These studies concluded there are no increased wound complications with removal at six hours versus 24 hours or within or beyond 48 hours after surgery. What do the results of this study add? The postoperative removal of the wound dressing at 48 hours had a lower wound score at six weeks than the removal at 24 hours for women with uncomplicated scheduled caesarean deliveries. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Early discharge after caesarean delivery is becoming more common. Dressing removal at 24 hours versus 48 hours becomes more crucial and needs to be clarified. Besides, high-risk populations, different skin closure techniques, and patients in labour should be addressed separately