
Olha Romanova devotes her lecture to modern strategies for poor-prognosis patients, opening with a striking case: 36 years, AMH 0.04, short cycle, FSH 16.9 — after estrogen priming, three consecutive stimulations with DuoStim led to a healthy baby girl and one more euploid embryo in reserve.
The case's key message is the power of a cumulative strategy: when a poor-prognosis patient is told upfront about the accumulation path, she finds it psychologically easier to continue after an inevitably modest first result.
The modern patient has changed: one in four couples stops treatment after the first failure — up to 65% in the USA; about half leave without ever achieving pregnancy. Hence a shift in how efficiency is understood — from per-transfer outcome to cumulative live birth per started cycle, time to pregnancy and patient retention.
Physiology is understood differently too: several waves of follicular growth occur within a single cycle. This underpins new approaches — random-start (beginning on any day, especially in oncofertility), luteal-phase stimulation and double stimulation (DuoStim) — two retrievals in one cycle.
Who are poor-prognosis patients: by Bologna criteria — two of three features (age 40+, ≤3 oocytes in a previous cycle, low AMH/AFC), plus POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. By SART data, live birth per IVF cycle falls from 36.9% (under 35) to 2.8% (over 42).
The main comparison is DuoStim versus two consecutive cycles. Interval between retrievals: 15 days versus 141 on average; dropout 8% versus 90%. Per GENERA data, over 10 years the DuoStim share rose from 7% to 34%, and the method gives +66% of cycles with at least one euploid embryo and +125% in live birth for poor-prognosis patients.
Importantly, oocytes and embryos from the follicular and luteal phases do not differ in development, genetic and reproductive competence, and children's perinatal outcomes are comparable. In 2025 DuoStim was added to the ESHRE guideline for patients not planning a fresh-cycle transfer.
The "secrets" of the technique are reviewed: the trigger after the first phase — preferably an agonist; the interval between retrieval and resuming stimulation — 5-6 days; all follicles of 10 mm and above should be aspirated, or they luteinise or desynchronise the next cohort.
A separate point is the flip side of random-start: when starting in the luteal phase, contraception must be advised. In a study of 488 protocols, 10 unintended pregnancies were recorded, underscoring the need for vigilance.
A fresh transfer after double stimulation is also possible — provided the start is in the second phase, antagonists (not PPOS) are used and an hCG trigger is given. The reasons for higher oocyte yield in the second phase are cohort synchronisation, increased FSH sensitivity, the agonist flare effect and angiogenesis activation after the first retrieval.
Conclusion: the traditional single-wave paradigm of follicular growth is revised; double stimulation significantly shortens the time to competent oocytes and embryos and reduces dropout. Indications are limited time to pregnancy, advanced reproductive age, oncofertility and a high risk of treatment abandonment; further protocol individualisation remains necessary.
The classic 'day 2–3' start is no longer the only option. When it is appropriate to start stimulation regardless of cycle phase, how dual stimulation (DuoStim) raises the cumulative oocyte yield in challenging patients, and where the limits of these approaches lie.