Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reproduktionsmedizinische Aspekte der ovariellen Funktionsreserve

Aspects of functional ovarian reserve in reproductive medicine

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Gynäkologische Endokrinologie Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Die ovarielle Funktionsreserve (OFR) beschreibt die ovarielle Funktion zum Zeitpunkt der Messung. Das Alter und damit die Qualität der Eizellen sind die entscheidenden, determinierenden Faktoren für die Spontankonzeptionsaussicht. Bei Subfertilität ist aber eine hohe OFR von deutlichem Vorteil für eine Kinderwunschbehandlung. Follikelquantität und Eizellqualität sollten immer zusammen betrachtet werden. Anstelle von OFR sollte sogar besser vom ovariellen Funktionspotenzial gesprochen werden. Ideal ist eine im mittleren Bereich liegende OFR, da sowohl eine sehr niedrige als auch eine sehr hohe OFR mit einer Beeinträchtigung der Eizellqualität einhergehen kann.

Abstract

Generally, ovarian reserve (OR) describes follicle quantity at the time of measurement. However, in addition, commonly used markers for OR serve as a proxy for follicle quality. Therefore, the term functional ovarian reserve (FOR) or ovarian potential should be preferred. The potential for spontaneous conception is mainly determined by female age. However, a higher FOR is beneficial with regard to subfertility and directly linked to successful IVF outcomes. An FOR in the middle range is ideal, since both very low and very high FOR may be accompanied by reduced oocyte quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3
Abb. 4
Abb. 5

Literatur

  1. Findlay JK, Hutt KJ, Hickey M, Anderson RA (2015) How is the number of primordial follicles in the ovarian reserve established? Biol Reprod 93(5):111. https://doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.115.133652

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hansen KR, Hodnett GM, Knowlton N, Craig LB (2011) Correlation of ovarian reserve tests with histologically determined primordial follicle number. Fertil Steril 95:170–175

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A et al (2014) The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Müllerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update 20(3):370–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Birch Petersen K, Hvidman HW, Forman JL et al (2015) Ovarian reserve assessment in users of oral contraception seeking fertility advice on their reproductive lifespan. Hum Reprod 30:2364–2375. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev197

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. de Koning CH, McDonnell J, Themmen APN et al (2008) The endocrine and follicular growth dynamics throughout the menstrual cycle in women with consistently or variably elevated early follicular phase FSH compared with controls. Hum Reprod 23:1416–1423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. American Society for Reproductive Medicine (2015) Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 103(3):e9–e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gougeon A (1998) Ovarian follicular growth in humans: ovarian ageing and population of growing follicles. Maturitas 30:137–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thilagam A (2016) Mathematical modelling of decline in follicle pool during female reproductive ageing. Math Med Biol 33(1):107–121. https://doi.org/10.1093/imammb/dqv006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. te Velde ER, Pearson PL (2002) The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update 8:141–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Tal R, Seifer DB (2017) Ovarian reserve testing: a user’s guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol 217:129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.02.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gnoth C, Roos J, Broomhead D et al (2015) Antimüllerian hormone levels and numbers and sizes of antral follicles in regularly menstruating women of reproductive age referenced to true ovulation day. Fertil Steril 104(6):1535–1543.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.027

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Gnoth C, Schuring AN, Friol K et al (2008) Relevance of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in a routine IVF program. Hum Reprod 23(6):1359–1365. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. van Helden J, Weiskirchen R (2015) Performance of the two new fully automated anti-Müllerian hormone immunoassays compared with the clinical standard assay. Hum Reprod 30:1918–1926. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev127

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lukaszuk K, Liss J, Kunicki M et al (2014) Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is a strong predictor of live birth in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol 14(3):176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.repbio.2014.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Grisendi V, La Marca A (2017) Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in vitro fertilization using ovarian reserve markers. Minerva Ginecol 69:250–258. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4784.17.04044-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Almog B, Shehata F, Suissa S et al (2011) Age-related normograms of serum antimullerian hormone levels in a population of infertile women: a multicenter study. Fertil Steril 95(7):2359–2363.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.02.057

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Almog B, Shehata F, Shalom-Paz E et al (2011) Age-related normogram for antral follicle count: McGill reference guide. Fertil Steril 95:663–666

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gonzalez-Foruria I, Penarrubia J, Borras A et al (2016) Age, independent from ovarian reserve status, is the main prognostic factor in natural cycle in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 106:342–347.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Noventa M et al (2015) Menstrual cycle length: a surrogate measure of reproductive health capable of improving the accuracy of biochemical/sonographical ovarian reserve test in estimating the reproductive chances of women referred to ART. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 13(1):28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0024-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Findlay JK, Hutt KJ, Hickey M, Anderson RA (2015) Ovarian reserve screening: a scientific and ethical analysis. Hum Reprod 30:1000–1002. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lambalk CB (2015) Anti-Müllerian hormone, the holy grail for fertility counselling in the general population? Hum Reprod 30(10):2257–2258. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gnoth C (2013) Natural fertility in couples and epidemiological aspects of subfertility. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz 56:1633–1641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-013-1852-9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Gnoth C, Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G et al (2003) Time to pregnancy: results of the German prospective study and impact on the management of infertility. Hum Reprod 18:1959–1966

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hagen CP, Vestergaard S, Juul A et al (2012) Low concentration of circulating antimullerian hormone is not predictive of reduced fecundability in young healthy women: a prospective cohort study. Fertil Steril 98(6):1602–1608.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.08.008

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Zarek SM, Mitchell EM, Sjaarda LA et al (2015) Is anti-Müllerian hormone associated with fecundability? Findings from the EAGeR trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(11):4215–4221. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-2474

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Gomez R, Schorsch M, Hahn T et al (2016) The influence of AMH on IVF success. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293:667–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3901-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Yoon BS, Kim YS, Seong SJ et al (2014) Impact on ovarian reserve after laparoscopic ovarian cystectomy with reduced port number: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 176:34–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.02.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vignali M, Mabrouk M, Ciocca E et al (2015) Surgical excision of ovarian endometriomas: does it truly impair ovarian reserve? Long term anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) changes after surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 41(11):1773–1778. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12830

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Muzii L, Di Tucci C, Di Feliciantonio M et al (2014) The effect of surgery for endometrioma on ovarian reserve evaluated by antral follicle count: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 29:2190–2198. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu199

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Vega M, Barad DH, Yu Y et al (2016) Anti-mullerian hormone levels decline with the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies. Am J Reprod Immunol 76(4):333–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.12551

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Magri F, Schena L, Capelli V et al (2015) Anti-Mullerian hormone as a predictor of ovarian reserve in ART protocols: the hidden role of thyroid autoimmunity. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0103-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Goswami M, Nikolaou D (2017) Is AMH level, independent of age, a predictor of live birth in IVF? J Hum Reprod Sci 10(1):24–30. https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_86_16

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bosch E, Labarta E, Pellicer A (2017) Does cumulative live birth plateau beyond a certain ovarian response? Fertil Steril 108(6):943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.10.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Li HWR, Lee VCY, Lau EYL et al (2014) Ovarian response and cumulative live birth rate of women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation who had discordant anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count measurements: a retrospective study. PLoS ONE 9(10):e108493. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0108493

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hamdine O, Eijkemans MJC, Lentjes EGW et al (2015) Antimüllerian hormone: prediction of cumulative live birth in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist treatment for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 104(4):891–898.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.06.030

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Dewailly D (2016) Diagnostic criteria for PCOS: is there a need for a rethink? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 37:5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Cimino I, Casoni F, Liu X et al (2016) Novel role for anti-Müllerian hormone in the regulation of GnRH neuron excitability and hormone secretion. Nat Commun 7:10055. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10055

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Alebic MS, Stojanovic N, Duhamel A, Dewailly D (2015) The phenotypic diversity in per-follicle anti-Müllerian hormone production in polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 30(8):1927–1933. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev131

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. De Vos M, Pareyn S, Drakopoulos P et al (2018) Cumulative live birth rates after IVF in patients with polycystic ovaries: phenotype matters. Reprod Biomed Online. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.05.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Dewailly D, Gronier H, Poncelet E et al (2011) Diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS): revisiting the threshold values of follicle count on ultrasound and of the serum AMH level for the definition of polycystic ovaries. Hum Reprod 26:3123–3129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Weddell S, Schiffner J, Gnoth C, Johnson S (2017) Can likelihood of natural pregnancy be predicted from demographics and LH surge characteristics? Abstr 33rd Annual Meeting European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Bd. 32, S i539 https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/32.Supplement_1.1

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Lin Y‑H, Chiu W‑C, Wu C‑H et al (2011) Antimüllerian hormone and polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 96(1):230–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.04.003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Qiao J, Feng HL (2011) Extra- and intra-ovarian factors in polycystic ovary syndrome: impact on oocyte maturation and embryo developmental competence. Hum Reprod Update 17(1):17–33. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmq032

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Nabti I, Grimes R, Sarna H et al (2017) Maternal age-dependent APC/C-mediated decrease in securin causes premature sister chromatid separation in meiosis II. Nat Commun 8:15346. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15346

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Beall S, Brenner C, Segars J (2010) Oocyte maturation failure: a syndrome of bad eggs. Fertil Steril 94:2507–2513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.02.037

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Li HWR, Lee VCY, Lau EYL et al (2014) Cumulative live-birth rate in women with polycystic ovary syndrome or isolated polycystic ovaries undergoing in-vitro fertilisation treatment. J Assist Reprod Genet 31:205–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-0151-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kumar P, Sait SF (2011) Luteinizing hormone and its dilemma in ovulation induction. J Hum Reprod Sci 4:2–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0974-1208.82351

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Beydilli Nacak G, Ozkaya E, Yayla Abide C et al (2018) The impact of autoimmunity-related early ovarian aging on ICSI cycle outcome. Gynecol Endocrinol:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2018.1469612

  49. Gnoth C (2011) Das Anti-Müller-Hormon. Ein Blick auf die biologische Uhr? Gynakol Endokrinol 9:238–246

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. La Marca A, Sunkara SK (2014) Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update 20:124–140. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt037

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Alebic MS, Stojanovic N, Dewailly D (2018) Discordance between serum anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations and antral follicle counts: not only technical issues. Hum Reprod 33(6):1141–1148. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey098

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Gnoth C (2014) Reduzierte ovarielle Funktionsreserve. In: Gnoth C, Mallmann P (Hrsg) Perikonzeptionelle Frauenheilkunde. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, S 287–294

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  53. Gnoth C (2014) Natürliche Fertilität. In: Gnoth C, Mallmann P (Hrsg) Perikonzeptionelle Frauenheilkunde. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, S 3–12

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Trounson A, Gosden R, Eichenlaub-Ritter U (Hrsg) (2013) Biology and pathology of the oocyte. Role in fertility, medicine and nuclear reprograming, 2. Aufl. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. green-ivf, Grevenbroicher Endokrinologie- und IVF-Zentrum, Rheydter Str. 143, 41515, Grevenbroich, Deutschland

    C. Gnoth, B. Kundel, C. Merino León & D. Fehr

  2. Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Uniklinik Köln, Köln, Deutschland

    C. Gnoth

Authors
  1. C. Gnoth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Kundel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Merino León
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Fehr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Gnoth.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

C. Gnoth ist „principal investigator“ klinischer Studien zur Entwicklung und Evaluation von Fertilitätsmonitoren und erhält dabei Unterstützung von SPD Development Company, Bedford, Großbritannien. Er erhielt Vortragshonorare und Unterstützung für Studien zur Evaluation von AMH-Tests von Beckman Coulter, Sinsheim, Deutschland. Er berät die AVA AG (Zyklustracker), Zürich, Schweiz, im Rahmen seiner Mitgliedschaft im International Scientific Advisory Board. B. Kundel, C. Merino León und D. Fehr geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Redaktion

G. Griesinger, Lübeck

T. Strowitzki, Heidelberg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gnoth, C., Kundel, B., Merino León, C. et al. Reproduktionsmedizinische Aspekte der ovariellen Funktionsreserve. Gynäkologische Endokrinologie 16, 240–248 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10304-018-0197-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10304-018-0197-8

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation