Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of a Minimally stimulated Natural cycle IVF with standard long protocol IVF. DESIGN: A Prospective Study Setting: Private Fertility Institute PATIENT(S): A total of 300 women were recruited of whom 150 cases [Group A] underwent IVF with minimally stimulated natural cycle and 150 controls [Group B] underwent IVF with standard long protocol, with cases and control matched for age, infertility cause, baseline FSH, ovarian reserve and no known male factor as a cause of infertility. RESULT(S): The number of oocytes retrieved was significantly lower for the minimally stimulated natural cycle regimen compared with the standard long protocol[ 4.8 ± 2.6 vs 16.2 ± 7.5 respectively]. The clinical pregnancy rate per transfer, however, was not significantly different between the two regimens [37% Vs 41%, minimally stimulated natural cycle Vs Standard long protocol, respectively]. CONCLUSION (S): Minimally stimulated natural cycle IVF is a viable alternative with comparable pregnancy rates to the standard long protocol, and with added advantages of close to zero multiple pregnancy rate, zero risk of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome, less time consuming, physically and emotionally less demanding for patients and also cost effective.