Serum AMH levels are not associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in women undergoing IVF treatment due to diminished ovarian reserve Association between AMH and perinatal outcomes

Main Article Content

Coşkun Şimşir
Tolga Ecemiş
Aynur Adeviye Erşahin
Gürhan Güney
Buğra Çoşkun
Bora Çoşkun
Sevtap Handemir Kılıç


Objective: Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is used as a biomarker for the estimation of fertility related parameters such as quality and quantity of oocytes in in vitro fertilization (IVF) procedures. High oocyte quality may also be associated with healthy trophoblastic invasion and lower complication rates during pregnancy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the relationship between AMH values and perinatal complications in infertile women with poor ovarian reserve (POR).

Material and Methods: A total of 68 women undergoing IVF treatment were included in the study. Thirty six of them constituted the study group (POR) and 32 pregnant women constituted the control group (Tubal factor). All women in the study were chosen from patients who have undergone to their first IVF cycle. Serum AMH levels were analyzed with an ELISA kit in all patients.

Results: AMH level was 5.4 times higher in the control group compared to that of the study group (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed between the groups with regard to preterm birth rate, gestational age at birth, birth weight, 1st and 5th minute Apgar scores, and neonatal intensive care unit admission rates (all, p>0.05).

Conclusion: We found that AMH did not predict adverse perinatal outcomes in women with POR.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
ŞimşirC., EcemişT., ErşahinA. A., GüneyG., ÇoşkunB., ÇoşkunB., & Handemir KılıçS. (2019). Serum AMH levels are not associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in women undergoing IVF treatment due to diminished ovarian reserve. Medical Science and Discovery, 6(9), 160-165.
Research Article


1. Templeton A, Morris JK, Parslow W. Factors that affect outcome of in-vitro fertilisation treatment. Lancet 1996;348:1402-1406.
2. Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:685-718.
3.Broekmans FJ, Soules MR, Fauser BC. Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Rev 2009;30:465-493.
4. Freeman EW, Sammel MD, Lin H, Boorman DW, Gracia CR. Contribution of the rate of change of antimullerian hormone in estimating time to menopause for late reproductive-age women. Fertil Steril 2012;98:1254-1259.e1-2.
5. Freeman EW, Sammel MD, Lin H, Gracia CR. Anti-mullerian hormone as a predictor of time to menopause in late reproductive age women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2012;97:1673-1680.
6. La Marca A, Ferraretti AP, Palermo R, Ubaldi FM. The use of ovarian reserve markers in IVF clinical practice: a national consensus. Gynecol Endocrinol 2016;32:1-5.
7. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, Stabile G, Volpe A. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:113-130.
8. Heidar Z, Bakhtiyari M, Mirzamoradi M, Zadehmodarres S, Sarfjoo FS, Mansournia MA. Prediction of different ovarian responses using anti-Mullerian hormone following a long agonist treatment protocol for IVF. J Endocrinol Invest 2015;38:1007-1015.
9. Iliodromiti S, Kelsey TW, Wu O, Anderson RA, Nelson SM. The predictive accuracy of anti-mullerian hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:560-570.
10. Lee RK, Wu FS, Lin MH, Lin SY, Hwu YM. The predictability of serum anti-Mullerian level in IVF/ICSI outcomes for patients of advanced reproductive age. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2011;9:115.
11. Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H, Jamieson M, Traynor I, Gaudoin M, Mitchell P, Ambrose P, Fleming R. Anti-Mullerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod 2009;24:867-875.
12. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015;103:e9-e17.
13. Nyboe Andersen A, Nelson SM, Fauser BC, Garcia-Velasco JA, Klein BM, Arce JC, group E-s. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril 2017;107:387-396.e4.
14. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1768-1774.
15. Steward RG, Lan L, Shah AA, Yeh JS, Price TM, Goldfarb JM, Muasher SJ. Oocyte number as a predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth: an analysis of 256,381 in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2014;101:967-973.
16. Park HJ, Lee GH, Gong du S, Yoon TK, Lee WS. The meaning of anti-Mullerian hormone levels in patients at a high risk of poor ovarian response. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2016;43:139-145.
17. Salmon NA, Handyside AH, Joyce IM. Oocyte regulation of anti-Müllerian hormone expression in granulosa cells during ovarian follicle development in mice. Dev Biol. 2004;266:201-208.
18. Kedem A, Yung Y, Yerushalmi GM, Haas J, Maman E, Hanochi M, Hemi R, Orvieto R, Dor J, Hourvitz A. Anti Müllerian Hormone (AMH) level and expression in mural and cumulus cells in relation to age. J Ovarian Res. 2014;7:113.
19. von Wolff M, Kollmann Z, Flück CE, Stute P, Marti U, Weiss B, Bersinger NA. Gonadotrophin stimulation for in vitro fertilization significantly alters the hormone milieu in follicular fluid: a comparative study between natural cycle IVF and conventional IVF. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1049-1057.
20. Palomba S, Homburg R, Santagni S, La Sala GB, Orvieto R. Risk of adverse pregnancy and perinatal outcomes after high technology infertility treatment: a comprehensive systematic review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14:76.
21. Iliodromiti S, Kelsey TW, Wu O, Anderson RA, Nelson SM. The predictive accuracy of anti-Müllerian hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:560-570.
22. Leroy J, Langbeen A, Van Hoeck V, Bols P. Effect of Energy Balance on Oocyte and Embryo Quality in Modern Dairy Cows. WCDS Advances in Dairy Technology 2010;22:71-79.
23. Pergialiotis V, Koutaki D, ChristopoulosTimogiannakis E, Kotrogianni P, Perrea DN, Daskalakis G. Anti-Müllerian Hormone Levels in Preeclampsia: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J Fam Reprod Health 2017;11: 178-184.
24. Woldringh GH, Frunt MH, Kremer JA, Spaanderman ME. Decreased ovarian reserve relates to pre-eclampsia in IVF/ICSI pregnancies. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2948-2954.
25. van Disseldorp J, Eijkemans R, Fauser B, Broekmans F. Hypertensive pregnancy complications in poor and normal responders after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:652-657.
26. Levron Y, Dviri M, Segol I, Yerushalmi GM, Hourvitz A, Orvieto R, Mazaki-Tovi S, Yinon Y. The 'immunologic theory' of preeclampsia revisited: a lesson from donor oocyte gestations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211:383.e1-5.
27. Oron G, Son WY, Buckett W, Tulandi T, Holzer H. The association between embryo quality and perinatal outcome of singletons born after single embryo transfers: a pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1444-1451.
28. Pelkonen S, Koivunen R, Gissler M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Suikkari AM, Hydén-Granskog C, Martikainen H, Tiitinen A, Hartikainen AL. Perinatal outcome of children born after frozen and fresh embryo transfer: the Finnish cohort study 1995-2006. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:914-923.
29. Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:368-77.e1-9.
30. Gianaroli L, Racowsky C, Geraedts J, Cedars M, Makrigiannakis A, Lobo RA. Best practices of ASRM and ESHRE: a journey through reproductive medicine. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1380-1394.
31. Mutlu MF, Erdem M, Erdem A, Yildiz S, Mutlu I, Arisoy O, Oktem M. Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-Mullerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30:657-665.
32. Isikoglu M, Ozgur K, Oehninger S, Ozdem S, Seleker M. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels do not predict the efficiency of testicular sperm retrieval in men with non-obstructive azoospermia. Gynecol Endocrinol 2006;22:256-260.
33. Sahmay S, Demirayak G, Guralp O, Ocal P, Senturk LM, Oral E, Irez T. Serum anti-mullerian hormone, follicle stimulating hormone and antral follicle count measurement cannot predict pregnancy rates in IVF/ICSI cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012;29:589-595.
34. Tal R, Seifer DB, Khanimov M, Schwartz E, Grazi RV, Malter HE. Anti-Mullerian hormone as an independent predictor of twin versus singleton pregnancy in fresh cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;26:360-367.
35. Van der Stroom EM, Konig TE, Vink JM, Boomsma DI, Lambalk CB. Ovarian reserve and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) in mothers of dizygotic twins. Twin Res Hum Genet 2013;16:634-638.
36. Hudson PL, Dougas I, Donahoe PK, Cate RL, Epstein J, Pepinsky RB, MacLaughlin DT. An immunoassay to detect human mullerian inhibiting substance in males and females during normal development. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1990;70:16-22.
37. Nelson SM, Iliodromiti S, Fleming R, Anderson R, McConnachie A, Messow CM. Reference range for the antimullerian hormone Generation II assay: a population study of 10,984 women, with comparison to the established Diagnostics Systems Laboratory nomogram. Fertil Steril 2014;101:523-529.
38. Welsh P, Smith K, Nelson SM. A single-centre evaluation of two new anti-Mullerian hormone assays and comparison with the current clinical standard assay. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1035-1041.