常用卵巢储备功能评价指标的比较研究

doi:10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245.2023.06.007

国际医药卫生导报 ›› 2023, Vol. 29 ›› Issue (6): 772-776.DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-1245.2023.06.007

常用卵巢储备功能评价指标的比较研究

龚进坤¹ 陈伟萍¹ 陈小平²

¹广东省第二中医院超声科，广州　510095；²广东省第二中医院妇科，广州　510095

收稿日期:2022-10-13 出版日期:2023-03-15 发布日期:2023-04-02
通讯作者: 陈伟萍，Email：243894709@qq.com
基金资助:
广东省中医药局资助项目（20201018）

Comparative study on common evaluation indicators of ovarian reserve function

Gong Jinkun¹, Chen Weiping¹, Chen Xiaoping²

¹Department of Ultrasound, Guangdong Second Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Guangzhou 510095, China; ²Department of Gynecology, Guangdong Second Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Guangzhou 510095, China

Received:2022-10-13 Online:2023-03-15 Published:2023-04-02
Contact: Chen Weiping, Email: 243894709@qq.com
Supported by:
Projected Funded by Guangdong Bureau of Traditional Chinese Medicine (20201018)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的　通过对常用卵巢储备功能评价指标进行比较，观察各指标对卵巢储备功能减退的预测效果。方法　采用回顾性分析。选取2019年6至2022年6月在广东省第二中医院检查的育龄期妇女，根据临床诊断分为卵巢储备功能减退72例（减退组）、卵巢储备功能正常42例（正常组）。收集两组育龄期妇女年龄、促卵泡生成素（FSH）、促黄体生成素（LH）、雌二醇（E₂）、卵巢体积（OVVOL）、窦卵泡数（AFC）及卵巢间质动脉血流流速（PSV）、阻力指数（RI）、搏动指数（PI）作为评价指标，比较两组各指标数值之间的差异性，组间比较采用独立样本t检验、Mann-Whitney检验，应用Pearson相关分析对上述指标与卵巢储备功能减退之间进行相关性分析，应用受试者工作曲线（ROC）测试各指标的灵敏度与特异度。结果　减退组年龄、FSH、LH、RI、PI值均高于正常组，减退组E₂、AFC、OVVOL、PSV明显低于正常组，差异均有统计学意义（均P<0.01）；卵巢储备功能减退与年龄、FSH、LH、RI、PI呈正相关（r分别为0.353、0.332、0.275、0.448、0.491，均P<0.01），与E₂、AFC、OVVOL及PSV呈负相关（r分别为-0.034、-0.860、-0.623、0.330，其中E₂指标P>0.05，余均P<0.01）；单指标预测卵巢储备功能减退的ROC曲线下面积（AUC）：AFC、FSH、OVVOL三者居前，分别为0.996、0.935、0.893，AUC值在0.850以上，符合AUC值分类中效果非常好，相应的cutoff值及所对应的灵敏度、特异度分别为5.75个、95%、97%，8.66 U/L、88%、95%，4.49 cm³、76%、89%。结论　常用卵巢储备功能部分评价指标（AFC、FSH、OVVOL）对判断卵巢储备功能是否减退有较高的准确率，在临床诊断中值得推广运用。

关键词:

卵巢储备, 彩色多普勒, 基础窦卵泡, 卵巢间质血流, 促卵泡生成素

Abstract:

Objective　To compare the common evaluation indicators of ovarian reserve function, and to observe the predictive effect of each indicator on decreased ovarian reserve function (DOR). Methods　This was a retrospective analysis. The women of childbearing age who were examined in Guangdong Second Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital from June 2019 to June 2022 were selected. According to the clinical diagnosis, they were divided into a hypofunctional ovarian reserve group (72 cases; a decreased group) and a normal ovarian reserve group (42 cases; a normal group). Age, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), estradiol (E₂), ovarian volume (OVVOL), antral follicle number (AFC), ovarian interstitial artery blood flow velocity (PSV), resistance index (RI), and pulsatile index (PI) were collected from all the women as the evaluation indicators, and the differences between the two groups were compared by independent-sample t test and Mann-Whitney test. The correlations between the above indicators and ovarian reserve dysfunction were analyzed by Pearson correlation analysis. The indicators' sensitivities and specificities were measured by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Results　The age, levels of FSH and LH, RI, and PI of the decreased group were higher than those of the normal group, while the E₂ level, AFC, OVVOL, and PSV of the decreased group were significantly lower than those of the normal group, with statistical differences (all P<0.01). DOR was positively correlated with age, FSH, LH, RI, and PI (r=0.353, 0.332, 0.275, 0.448, and 0.491; all P<0.01), and negatively with E₂, AFC, OVVOL, and PSV (r=-0.034, -0.860, -0.623, and 0.330; P> 0.05 for E₂ and P<0.01 for the rest). The areas under the ROC's of AFC, FSH, and OVVOL for predicting ovarian reserve were the top three, 0.996, 0.935, and 0.893, respectively; their AUC's were above 0.850; they were very good in accordance with the AUC classification. The corresponding cutoff values, sensitivities, and specificities were 5.75, 95%, and 97%, 8.66 U/L, 88%, and 95%, and 4.49 cm³, 76%, and 89%, respectively. Conclusion　At present, the commonly used evaluation indicators of ovarian reserve function (AFC, FSH, and OVVOL) have high accuracies in determining whether ovarian reserve function is decreased, with promotion and application value in clinical diagnosis.

Key words:

Ovarian reserve, Color Doppler, Basal antral follicle, Ovarian interstitial blood flow, Follicle-stimulating hormone

龚进坤陈伟萍陈小平.

常用卵巢储备功能评价指标的比较研究 [J]. 国际医药卫生导报, 2023, 29(6): 772-776.

Gong Jinkun, Chen Weiping, Chen Xiaoping.

Comparative study on common evaluation indicators of ovarian reserve function [J]. International Medicine and Health Guidance News, 2023, 29(6): 772-776.

参考文献

[1] 冯琴.关于育龄女性反复妊娠失败的研究进展[J/CD].实用妇科内分泌电子杂志,2020,7(17):4-5.DOI:10.16484/j.cnki.issn2095-8803.2020.17.003.
[2] 黄玲,陈燕娥,王颜.海口地区高龄备孕女性生殖健康现状分析[J].中国计划生育学杂志,2021,29(1):203-206.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-8189.2021.01.048.
[3] 卵巢储备功能减退临床诊治专家共识专家组,中华预防医学会生育力保护分会生殖内分泌生育保护学组.卵巢储备功能减退临床诊治专家共识[J].生殖医学杂志,2022,31(4):425-434.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-3845.2022.04.001.
[4] 叶晨书,沈明霞.卵巢储备功能下降的病因与治疗研究[J].医学信息,2021,34(10):47-49.DOI:10.3969/j.issn. 1006-1959.2021.10.013.
[5] Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org; Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion[J]. Fertil Steril, 2020,114(6):1151-1157. DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.134.
[6] 潘小静,朱君彪.阴道超声对卵泡发育和卵巢储备功能的评估价值[J].中国妇幼保健,2021,36(13):3151-3153.DOI:10.19829/j.zgfybj.issn.1001-4411.2021.13.072.
[7] Abrahami N, Izhaki I, Younis JS. Is there a difference in ovarian reserve biomarkers and ovarian response between the right and left ovaries?[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2020,41(3):416-424. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo. 2020.06.007.
[8] 岳馨.经阴道三维超声定量评估卵巢储备功能下降及卵巢早衰的价值分析[J].影像研究与医学应用,2020,4(4):152-153.
[9] 李文梅.经阴道彩色多普勒超声在不孕女性卵巢储备功能评价中的应用价值[J].影像研究与医学应用,2019,3(21):221-222.
[10] Ata B, Seyhan A, Seli E. Diminished ovarian reserve versus ovarian aging: overlaps and differences[J]. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 2019,31(3):139-147. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000536.
[11] 顾小铃,陈艳男,郁敏燕,等.基础卵泡刺激素对卵巢储备功能下降患者胚胎发育结局的预测价值[J].江苏医药,2021,47(4):359-363.DOI:10.19460/j.cnki.0253-3685. 2021.04.010.
[12] 何英姿,陈琳,温晶,等.不同卵巢储备女性性激素受体表达及其相关性[J].中国计划生育学杂志,2022,30(02):379-382. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-8189.2022.02.030.
[13] Mohr-Sasson A, Haas J, Bar-Adon S, et al. The influence of cesarean delivery on ovarian reserve: a prospective cohort study[J]. Reprod Sci, 2022,29(2):639-645. DOI: 10.1007/s43032-021-00730-z.
[14] Moini A, Pirjani R, Rabiei M, et al. Can delivery mode influence future ovarian reserve? Anti-Mullerian hormone levels and antral follicle count following cesarean section: a prospective cohort study[J]. J Ovarian Res, 2019,12(1):83. DOI: 10.1186/s13048-019-0551-z.
[15] Björvang RD, Hassan J, Stefopoulou M, et al. Persistent organic pollutants and the size of ovarian reserve in reproductive-aged women[J]. Environ Int, 2021,155:106589. DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106589.
[16] 王雅慧,李全香,杨娜,等.高强度聚焦超声治疗瘢痕妊娠对卵巢储备功能的影响[J].武警医学,2020,31(5):378-381.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-3594.2020.05.003.
[17] Shi X, Chen S, Yang Y, et al. Laparoscopic surgeries for uterine fibroids and ovarian cysts reduce ovarian reserve via age- and surgical type-manner[J]. Gynecol Endocrinol, 2022,5:1-5. DOI: 10.1080/09513590.2022.2128104.
[18] 魏景蕊,袁巾惠,白晶莹,等.评估卵巢储备功能的常用指标对预测卵巢反应性的价值比较[J].生殖医学杂志,2020,29(1):27-32.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1004-3845.2020.01.006.

常用卵巢储备功能评价指标的比较研究

Comparative study on common evaluation indicators of ovarian reserve function

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 0

编辑推荐

Metrics