Skip to main content
. 2020 Jul 9;13(2):150–154. doi: 10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_59_19

Table 2.

Assisted reproductive technology outcomes in poor responders undergoing follicular flushing and direct aspiration

Primary outcomes Follicular flushing Group A (n=35) Direct aspiration Group B (n=36) p Difference between means or proportion 95% confidence limits

Lower limit Upper limit
Total number of oocytes retrievedc 4.5 ± 1.7 3.7 ± 1.9 0.066 0.79 −0.05 1.6
Total number of MII oocytesc 2 (2-3) 2.5 (1-3) 0.907 - - -
Secondary outcomes
 Fertilization ratea 0.73 ± 0.29 0.68 ± 0.34 0.537 0.05 −0.10 0.19
 Cleavage ratec 1 (0-1) 1 (0-1) 0.716 - - -
 Total number of embryosc 4 (2-4) 3 (2-4) 0.073 - - -
 Number of Grade 1 embryosc 3 (2-3) 2 (1-3) 0.075 - - -
 Number of embryos transferreda 2.6±1.1 2.2 ± 1.2 0.148 0.41 −0.15 0.96
 Failed oocyte recovery, n (%)b 2/35 (5.7) 4/36 (11.4) 0.421 −0.054 −0.187 0.079
 Failed fertilization, n (%)b 1/35 (2.8) 0/36 (0) 0.328 −0.028 −0.084 0.028
 Implantation rate, n (%)b 8/74 (10.8) 2/72 (2.8) 0.098 8 0 17.4
 Clinical pregnancy rate, n (%)b 8/35 (22.9) 2/36 (5.6) 0.046 17.3 0.007 34.0
 Miscarriage rate, n (%)b 4/35 (11.4) 0/36 (0) 0.054 11.4 0 26.0
 Live birth rate, n (%)b 4/35 (11.4) 2/36 (5.6) 0.429 5.9 0 20.9
 Anesthesia timea 36.7 ± 8.6 19.1 ± 3.7 <0.001 17.6 14.5 20.7
 Procedure timea 8.2 ± 3.4 3.8 ± 1.5 <0.001 4.4 3.2 5.6

Data were presented as aMean±SD, bn (%), cMedian (minimum–maximum). SD=Standard deviation, MII=Metaphase II