Skip to main content

Women with PCOS who undergo IVF: a comprehensive review of therapeutic strategies for successful outcomes


Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a widespread syndrome that poses unique challenges and constraints to the field of assisted reproductive technology. This condition is the most common cause of anovulation among infertile couples. Debate exists over the best therapeutic course of action when patients with PCOS proceed to IVF. In this review, we evaluate the best-performing and safest methods of IVF preparation, ovarian stimulation, trigger method for maturation of stimulated egg growth, and planning for embryo transfer. Pre-IVF considerations include being aware of individual AMH and vitamin D levels as well as BMI prior to selecting an ovarian stimulation protocol. Numerous supplements such as myo-inositol complement the benefits of lifestyle change and may enhance IVF performance including oocyte yield and pregnancy rate. Concerning stimulation protocols, antagonist cycles with the judicious use of GnRH agonist trigger, pre-treatment with metformin and vitamin D repletion may help mitigate the accompanied risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Following ovarian stimulation, PCOS patients typically undergo programmed frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles which are more conducive for women with irregular cycles, but likely carry a higher risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. However, newer stimulated FET protocols using Letrozole may offer improved outcomes. Overall, patients with PCOS require careful individual tailoring of their IVF cycle to achieve optimal results.


Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is the most common cause of anovulation, affecting up to 80% of women with this condition [1]. 9–18% of reproductive-age women have PCOS to some degree [2]. This diagnosis is based upon clinical and/or biochemical assessments of hyperandrogenism combined with ultrasound assessment for polycystic-appearing ovaries and/or oligomenorrhea as outlined by Rotterdam criteria. However, clinical features that may accompany this diagnosis can include obesity and other facets of the metabolic syndrome, mood disorders such as anxiety and depression and often infertility [3]. Women with PCOS are also noted to have higher serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels with granulosa cells having up a 75-fold increased production of AMH [4]. Serum levels are 18-fold higher in anovulatory PCOS women than their ovulatory counterparts [5]. Given the known negative regulatory effect of AMH on FSH signaling and the inhibition of follicle development caused by AMH, elevated AMH is one mechanism which precludes cyclic follicular development in women with PCOS [6]. Numerous metabolic aberrations including the elevation in LH and elevated serum androgen levels also contribute to the increased AMH level [6,7,8]. These mechanisms, in addition to the effects of insulin resistance and hyperandrogenism, contribute to the anovulation and infertility seen in PCOS. Even when ovulation is present, PCOS patients may be at higher risk for infertility [9]. This may be due to oocyte quality issues and/or reduced endometrial quality [10, 11]. In addition, patients with PCOS who do ovulate and become pregnant, tend to experience higher rates of gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, and premature birth [12].

However, when pregnancy cannot be easily achieved, numerous treatments are available for infertility in the setting of PCOS. These include ovulation induction, with letrozole being the first-line agent with or without intra-uterine insemination, gonadotropin-IUI, laparoscopic ovarian drilling, and in-vitro fertilization (IVF) [1]. In a randomized-controlled trial (RCT) by Legro et al., patients treated with Letrozole exhibited both a significantly higher pregnancy rate (PR) and cumulative live birth rate (LBR) compared to treatment those treated with Clomiphene (PR: 41% vs. 27%, LBR: 28% vs. 19%, resp.) [13]. On average, women with PCOS required 90 days or approximately 3 cycles of Letrozole therapy to achieve a pregnancy [13].

Whether a patient will continue with further ovarian stimulation cycles or proceed with IVF depends on the combination of patient desire, value system (i.e. patience, risk tolerance, expense), age, and ovarian reserve. Currently, no cost benefit analysis has been done to clarify the most time- and cost-effective pathway once three or more cycles of Letrozole- or Gonadotropin-IUI have been completed. If the patient chooses to proceed with IVF, then numerous steps should be taken to optimize outcomes. Firstly, all patient pre-existing medical issues should be addressed prior to IVF to achieve the best and safest outcome. Secondly, one must assess how to achieve ovarian stimulation and triggering to maximize oocyte yield while minimizing the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Thirdly, is the need to address how to best prepare the endometrium for implantation/pregnancy and mitigate pregnancy risks that may be encountered in this at risk population. In the following sections, we will address each of these important considerations.


Our search utilized the following databases: Pubmed, The Cochrane Library, and Ovid-Medline. The phrases utilized for the search were adapted for each database and included “PCOS AND in-vitro fertilization”, “PCOS AND IVF”, “PCOS AND weight loss AND IVF”, “PCOS AND exercise AND IVF”, “PCOS AND myo-inositol”, “PCOS AND metformin”, “PCOS AND insulin sensitizer”, “PCOS AND Vitamin D”, “PCOS AND IVF stimulation”, “PCOS and trigger”, “Ovarian hyperstimulation AND PCOS”, “PCOS AND GnRH agonist”, “PCOS AND frozen embryo transfer”, “PCOS AND obstetric outcomes”, “PCOS AND perinatal outcomes”. Our search period spanned from 1946 to 2022. 6943 articles in total were found. Each of these articles was then evaluated based upon title and/or abstract for relevance (AK). Studies not published in English were excluded. 2604 duplicates were removed. Of the remaining studies, 59 of these articles were included within this review. The references of each cited source were assessed to so as not to exclude any other sources relevant to this review.

The primary focus was to evaluate the most recent literature on the role of IVF in patients with PCOS and on how to optimally prepare such patients for IVF, embryo transfer and the risks that may be anticipated in pregnancy. Articles were chosen for inclusion if they were: (1) retrospective or prospective studies or meta-analyses involving women with PCOS of reproductive age women and involved IVF and/or embryo transfer, (2) Systematic reviews or (3) incorporated in-vitro or in-vivo animal or cell culture studies in which signs of PCOS or ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were recapitulated. Excluded studies (1) were case reports, case series, abstracts, expert opinion articles, (2) did not involve patients with PCOS or (3) did not involve patients undergoing IVF and instead undergoing procedures such as intra-uterine insemination (IUI) or in-vitro maturation (IVM).

IVF preparation

Even before IVF has been planned, a proper assessment should be taken to optimize IVF cycle outcomes in a patient with PCOS. These include lifestyle modification, cycle priming and various adjuvants i.e. supplements/medications that could address aspects of PCOS pathophysiology. Elevated age-specific AMH levels, decreased vitamin D levels and elevated BMI ( 30) provide insight into choosing metformin pretreatment and/or vitamin D supplementation. During IVF, choosing the optimal method of ovarian stimulation and triggering method are essential in lowering chances of OHSS and maximize egg yield.

a. Metabolic Assessment and Lifestyle adjustment:

PCOS is a condition with strong associations with metabolic disturbances such as those seen metabolic syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is a constellation of physical and metabolic abnormalities which involves signs of insulin resistance, excess weight, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Currently the Adult Treatment Panel III  (ATPIII) guidelines are used to establish the diagnosis; however, even if these criteria is not met, many PCOS patients may exhibit some aspect of metabolic syndrome [1, 14]. One of the chief abnormalities is insulin resistance, the gold standard to assess this is the euglycemic insulin clamp test; however, this test is generally limited to research scenarios [1]. A more common assessment relies on a glucose tolerance test (OGTT) using a 75g glucose load. Given the available data and relative cost, the OGTT is considered the standard for assessing impaired glucose tolerance in at-risk PCOS patients [15]. Approximately 35% of PCOS patients will have some form of insulin resistance and 10% will meet criteria for diabetes mellitus [16]. Other metabolic syndrome abnormalities often seen with PCOS include hyperlipidemia, especially in obese patients. Hence all obese women should undergo a fasting lipid profile [17]. Once a PCOS patient has been assessed for the abnormalities, interventional steps can be started.

Our current understanding of the pathophysiology of PCOS highlights the need for lifestyle modification as a path to better clinical outcomes. Weight and its relationship to insulin resistance and circulating free fatty acids are key drivers of PCOS pathophysiology. Hence, mitigating excess weight is considered beneficial for women with PCOS. Numerous studies have highlighted the benefit of weight loss as a method to improve reproductive outcomes in this population [1]. Even a 5–10% weight loss in PCOS patients can lead to resumption of normal ovulation [1]. Gao et al assessed the performance of BMI, cholesterol and basal FSH on the IVF outcomes in patients with PCOS and their predictive model showed an AUC of 0.708 for live birth rate, suggesting some predictive role for metabolic parameters [18]. Weight can also impact fertilization outcomes with overweight PCOS patients having a 69% lower PR per cycle start and a 71% lower LBR compared to lean PCOS patients [19]. Physical activity has also been shown to be beneficial; in a pooled analysis, Mena et al found a higher PR and LBR in PCOS patients undergoing consistent physical activity compared to those undergoing dietary or pharmaceutical therapy alone [20].

Once a patient’s lifestyle has been optimized as far as weight loss and physical activity, the question then arises as to how to best prepare for the actual IVF cycle. Pre-treatment with combined oral contraceptives (COCs) or estradiol to help synchronize the nascent follicles is one common approach. One nested cohort study from 2017 indicated that women with PCOS who started IVF following a spontaneous menses had a higher pregnancy rate (PR) and live birth rate (LBR) compared to those that were on COCs prior to their IVF cycle [21]. Luteal phase estradiol supplementation has not been as well studied in this population. However, early supplementation of estradiol in at least one study showed greater numbers of retrieval metaphase II (MII) oocytes in PCOS patients [22]. Considering these findings, while it would be best to avoid COCs prior to an IVF cycle, COCs may still need to be used to ensure optimal cycle timing for various logistical purposes including patient convenience.

b. Adjuvant agents

1. Myoinositol

As a natural insulin sensitizer, myo-inositol has been studied extensively in PCOS patients [23, 24]. Papaleo et al in their small RCT showed that patients treated with myo-inositol and 2g per day of folic acid needed less gonadotropin during stimulation and had fewer number of immature oocytes [25]. A subsequent meta-analysis incorporating, 8 studies on myo-inositol showed a consistent decrease in gonadotropin dose and duration of ovarian stimulation in PCOS patients undergoing IVF [26]. Zheng et al completed a meta-analysis of seven trials, four of which involved patients with PCOS which confirmed higher clinical PRs with lower gonadotropin amounts in those patients undergoing IVF and pre-treated with myo-inositol [27].

Melatonin has also been studied in combination with myo-inositol. This molecule is an essential regulator of not just circadian rhythm, but also is key in obtaining adequate oocyte quality. This is chiefly due to its activity as a free-radical scavenger which can help mitigate the effects of oxidative stress, the main contributor to ovarian aging. Hence, melatonin is considered to be a factor which can enhance proper oogenesis [28]. Based upon work showing disruptions in melatonin signaling in PCOS patients, a subsequent prospective study looked at the addition of melatonin in PCOS patients undergoing IVF/ICSI and found a greater number of mature oocytes with a trend towards higher implantation and clinical PRs [29, 30]. The same group assessed the effect of myo-inositol with melatonin on PCOS patients who did not conceive in previous IVF cycles. In 46 patients undergoing treatment, 13 went on to conceive. While encouraging, this study was severely limited by the lack of a control group. One subsequent controlled prospective trial and one RCT confirmed that oocyte and embryo quality improved following treatment with myo-inositol, folic acid, and melatonin [31, 32].

Concerning folic acid, its effect in combination with myo-inositol was reinforced by the work of Wdowiak et al which showed an improvement embryo/blastcocyst formation and PR in patients with PCOS supplemented with 4g of myo-inositol and 400 mcg of folic acid per day compared to PCOS patients only given folic acid [33]. It is key to note that approximately 38% of patients may be resistant to myo-inositol, but studies in which alpha-lactalbulmin was supplemented noted reduction in this resistance. However, these studies were not randomized trials and did not involve patients undergoing IVF thus severely limiting general applicability [34,35,36]. Overall myo-inositol especially when combined with folic acid and melatonin may be a promising adjuvant for any patient with PCOS planning IVF.

2. Insulin sensitizers

Insulin resistance has previously been shown to have a negative correlation with ovarian sensitivity [37]. Metformin has been the most commonly-studied insulin sensitizer in PCOS patients. Tang randomized patients to 850mg of Metformin versus placebo from the day of ovarian suppression to the day of retrieval and noted a greater clinical pregnancy rate after 12 weeks and a lower rate of OHSS in the Metformin group [38]. A more recent small RCT with 102 overweight and obese PCOS patients randomized to 1000mg of Metformin at time of ovarian stimulation versus placebo showed lower oocyte yield, but similar LBR in the Metformin group [39]. In contrast, Jacob et al in their RCT noted lower clinical PR per cycle started and lower LBR, but a lower risk of OHSS [40]. Tso et al later completed a systematic review and meta-analysis in women on the effect of Metformin before or during IVF/ICSI cycles and found no difference LBRs, but OHSS risk overall was observed to be lower [41]. Other insulin-sensitizing agents have also been studied. In a small RCT, Salamun et al found that Liraglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, in combination with Metformin led to higher cumulative PR over 12 months in women with PCOS undergoing IVF. It is anticipated that GLP-1 receptor agonists may be more commonly utilized in the future as increased clinical experience accumulates and both short and long-term neonatal and infant studies are published. Of note, both the Metformin only group and the Metformin and Liraglutide group experienced a similar weight loss of an of average 7-7.5kg [42].

Insulin sensitizers remain an attractive adjuvant in treating PCOS patients planning IVF. While OHSS risk may be mitigated and some limited weight loss may be achieved, it is unclear if these agents could improve oocyte yield and resultant PR and LBR.

3. Vitamin D

Lower than normal Vitamin D levels have been linked to abnormal metabolic outcomes in PCOS patients [43, 44]. Numerous groups have assessed the effect of Vitamin D on outcomes in such women undergoing IVF. Abadia et al performed a cross-sectional study looking at Vitamin D levels in women undergoing ART and noted a positive correlation between vitamin D levels and oocyte fertilization rates. However, no correlation was noted with pregnancy outcomes [45]. This reinforced a prior Iranian study looking at follicular and serum levels of vitamin D. Unfortunately, both the pregnant and non-pregnant patients had Vitamin D levels below 10ng/mL which likely biased their results [46]. However, a subsequent prospective cohort study looking at Vitamin D levels and pregnancy rates following frozen embryo transfer did not show any correlation, especially after an adjusted analysis [47]. Chu et all then did a much larger prospective cohort study and observed higher LBR for patients that were Vitamin D replete (37.7%) compared to deficient (23.2%) and insufficient (27.0%) patients [48], yet this barely achieved statistical significance (p = 0.04).

Additional parameters notable for women with PCOS undergoing IVF is a risk of OHSS which is a believed to be driven by elevated VEGF levels. A small RCT noted lower VEGF levels in vitamin D deficient PCOS patients treated with aggressive Vitamin D supplementation [49]. The same group also noted improved levels of numerous other metabolic and inflammatory signals [50, 51].

Overall, while abnormally low vitamin D levels have been associated with PCOS, the role of vitamin D measurement and supplementation in PCOS patients undergoing IVF is still unclear. Further high quality RCTs which include both reproductive outcomes and OHSS rates are crucial to better understanding the role of this nutrient.

Ovarian stimulation

a. Stimulation method

Once an IVF cycle is planned, the actual ovulation induction protocol can have a significant impact upon outcomes. Thus, the question arises of whether a standard-long GnRH-agonist protocol versus a GnRH antagonist protocol is preferable. Lanias et al conducted an RCT with 220 patients comparing the two protocols and found lower OHSS rates, lower gonadotropin doses and lower stimulation duration in patient that underwent a GnRH-antgonist protocol [52]. A later phase IV, open-label RCT involving 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles showed a lower risk of OHSS and its complications when a GnRH-antagonist protocol compared to using a standard-long GnRH-agonist protocol [53]. While not solely focused on PCOS patients, this study reinforced the concept that GnRH-antagonist cycles can lead to reduced OHSS risk. A meta-analysis from 2022 looking at 10 RCTs which confirmed the lower risk of OHSS using a GnRH-antagonist protocol, but a lower retrieved oocyte number. Despite the lower oocyte yield, there was no difference in PR and LBR and miscarriage rate compared to patients that underwent a standard-long GnRH-agonist protocol [54]. A subsequent meta-analysis of 50 RCTs comparing antagonist versus the standard long-agonist protocol showed lower ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82–0.96). Yet, OHSS rates were substantially lower in PCOS patients that were treated with an antagonist protocol (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30–0.95). It must be noted that a contributor to the lower OHSS risk in patients in the GnRH-antagonist protocol was the use of a GnRH agonist trigger. In short, GnRH antagonist protocols seem to offer the best combination of cycle flexibility and OHSS risk minimization for PCOS patients.

An alternative protocol involves suppression of LH using progestins at the time of ovarian stimulation. A prospective cohort study by Xiao et al compared a progestin-suppression (termed progestin-primed) protocol compared to a flexible GnRH antagonist approach and found that progestin-primed patients had similar pregnancy rates and lower OHSS rates, but the dose and duration of gonadotropin treatment was greater [55]. In a retrospective study with 333 women with PCOS, progestin suppression in lieu of a GnRH antagonist led to similar PR and LBR with no increased risk of a premature LH compared to a GnRH antagonist protocol [56]. These aforementioned results are encouraging, but additional multicenter RCTs are necessary to best further elucidate the effectiveness of this progestin-based protocol in PCOS patients.

Minimal stimulation IVF has also been studied in the PCOS population. This protocol is meant to grow a cohort of follicles with a maximum dose of 150 IU of FSH [57]. A retrospective study of 235 cycles from Germany comparing IVF outcomes in patients with and without PCOS noted no difference in clinical PR and OHSS rates [58]. A recent meta-analysis of 31 RCTs indicated that the use of minimal-stimulation IVF exhibited similar live-birth rates compared to conventional dose IVF in high responders such as PCOS patients [59]. Hence, minimal stimulation IVF presents a tantalizing option for PCOS patients especially if OHSS risk is excessive and/or cost must be minimized.

b. Trigger method

Once a patient has undergone ovarian stimulation and has achieved follicles of sufficient size likely to obtain mature oocytes, the next step is to choose the most effective trigger injection. Recombinant hCG is the established standard for most protocols [3]. However, PCOS patients tend to have a higher risk for OHSS and hCG is not necessarily the best option in this case [3]. Engmann did an RCT of sixty-six patients with PCOS or a history of high response during IVF and showed that triggering with a GnRH agonist led to lower rates of OHSS compared to using hCG [60]. A subsequent meta-analysis incorporated this and 16 other RCTs and determined that the risk of OHSS was substantially reduced using a GnRH trigger compared to an hCG trigger (OR 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.47). However, without an adjustment of added luteal support, patients that received the GnRH agonist trigger had a somewhat lower LBR and higher miscarriage rate [61]. Numerous prospective and retrospective studies have indicated that luteal support, in the form of addition hCG or LH can improve implantation rates and LBR in patients receiving an agonist trigger to that of patients receiving an hCG trigger [62,63,64].

In addition to a using GnRH agonist as a trigger to minimize OHSS, other adjuvants around the time of the trigger injection have been evaluated. The most well-studied is the use of dopamine agonists, the most commonly used of which is cabergoline. The use of dopamine agonists is based upon animal models of OHSS and evidence of low-dopamine tone in PCOS patients leading to dysregulated VEGF signaling (the key factor behind the pathogenesis of OHSS) [65, 66]. Cabergoline inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) phosphorylation and signaling thereby preventing VEGF’s action on its receptor and thus mitigating OHSS. An RCT compared cabergoline at the time of trigger and placebo and treatment with cabergoline decreased the moderate OHSS risk to 20% compared to 43.8% with placebo. In addition, patients experienced smaller increases in their hemoglobin and the accumulation of ascites [67]. Concerning the timing of cabergoline administration, a recent retrospective study compared dosing at time of GnRH agonist versus day of retrieval with the former group exhibiting less mild-to-moderate OHSS [68]. This approach of providing cabergoline at time of trigger instead at time of retrieval makes inherent sense given the need to prevent any early rise in VEGF levels. Additional studies have assessed other agents to supplement cabergoline such as the use of luteal GnRH antagonists which is effective while the use of albumin as an intravascular volume expander is less effective [69, 70]. Given the above literature, the use of cabergoline is recommended in patients experiencing OHSS according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). However, the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) does not recommend using cabergoline if a GnRH agonist trigger has already been used.

c. Fresh transfer versus frozen transfer

Once a PCOS patient has undergone successful oocyte retrieval and has obtained embryos, several decision points arise concerning the fresh versus frozen-thaw approach to embryo transfer. Given the altered hormonal milieu in PCOS and the typically higher estrogen levels in these patients, the question of performing a fresh transfer versus a freeze all strategy followed by a thaw embryo transfer has also been considered. Chen et al performed one of the largest RCTs to address this question and their data indicated that a freeze-all strategy for PCOS patients led to a higher LBR, lower miscarriage rate, and lower OHSS rate. It is of note that this study only performed cleavage-stage transfers [71]. A subsequent RCT using 212 high-responding patients (as PCOS patients tend to be) showed no difference in PR and LBR between the freeze-all and fresh transfer with hCG-support arms. Both cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage embryos were transferred. However, the fresh transfer arm was the only one to exhibit moderate to severe OHSS at a rate of 8.6% compared to 0% [72]. Overall, a freeze-all strategy appears to yield better outcome as far as LBR and lower OHSS for patients with PCOS.

Frozen thaw embryo transfer (FET)

If a freeze-all strategy has been adopted whether for OHSS-mitigation, desire for pre-implantation genetic testing or potentially other patient/provider preferences, the method and timing of subsequent frozen embryo transfer is a crucial question. Given that oligovulation is present in a majority of PCOS patients, programmed (hormone replacement) FET cycle protocols have been extensively used and studied in these patients [1]. Man et al performed a retrospective cohort analysis on PCOS patients undergoing various endometrial preparation regimens prior to FET. These were natural cycle, ovarian stimulation, and hormone replacement. The pregnancy rates for each method were 72.3, 73.8, and 64.9% with LBRs being 62.4, 65.0, and 52.2%, respectively, with the later achieving statistical significance (p < 0.009) [73]. In the meta-analysis of Kollmann et al, a comparison of a human menopausal gonadotropin-simulated FET protocol versus a hormone replacement cycle using estradiol valerate showed no difference in LBR [74]. Despite the mixed data concerning the success rates of various FET protocols in PCOS patients, hormone replacement protocols provide the greatest degree of flexibility and predictablility in planning an embryo transfer.

Given this data on programmed FET protocols, one must ask if any role remains for natural cycle FET. The answer to this remains a resounding, ‘yes’. If a patient wishes to minimize exposure to exogenous hormones whether this be for personal preference versus a medical indication (e.g. history of estrogen/progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer), then a natural cycle FET could still be attempted. In addition, there is substantial data on using Letrozole to stimulate monofollicular growth. Zhang et al did a retrospective study of 2664 patients comparing a Letrozole-stimulated FET protocol compared to a hormone replacement protocol and found a greater LBR for the Letrozole-stimulated FET group. However, a subsequent meta-analysis analyzing outcomes from four retrospective cohort studies found no difference in PR or LBR for letrozole-stimulated cycles compared to programmed FET cycles [75]. Of note, letrozole-stimulated FET cycles have been associated with lower risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared to programmed FET cycles [76].

A note must be made here about endometrial receptivity. The altered hormonal milieu in PCOS patients with higher androgens and higher estrogen levels at the time of ovarian stimulation is believed to be deleterious to endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation [77] thus, further supporting the preference for frozen-thaw transfer in lieu of a fresh transfer.

Obstetric and Perinatal Outcomes

Once a PCOS patient has achieved a pregnancy via IVF, the goal then becomes precluding adverse events during pregnancy. Numerous studies have shown an adverse effect of PCOS on general perinatal outcomes, especially when that patient is overweight or obese. These adverse effects include a higher risk of gestational diabetes (GDM), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), pre-term birth (PTB) and macrosomia and seem to be independent of diagnostic criteria [78,79,80].

When examining the population of PCOS patients undergoing IVF, a more complex picture appears. Wan et al did a retrospective cohort study looking at 864 patients, of the 54 live births in the PCO group and 174 in the control group, they did not notice any difference in the rates of GDM, HDP, and intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) [81]. Ectopic pregnancy rates were assessed by Wang et al and in their analysis they noted a higher risk of ectopic pregnancy following fresh embryo transfer 7.0% vs 2.4% adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34–6.96). This effect was absent when frozen transfers were compared between PCOS and non-PCOS patients thus further supporting a freeze-all strategy. Notably, for women with PCOS who underwent FET, pre-pregnancy weight overall did not lead to any differences in perinatal outcomes aside from an increased risk of cesarean delivery in patients who are overweight and obese [82]. Overall, the totally of data suggests that PCOS patients undergoing IVF are at higher risk for specific obstetric adverse events such as HDP and that excess weight can exacerbate overall risk.


PCOS remains the most common cause of anovulation among women with infertility. When women with PCOS require IVF to treat their infertility, numerous beneficial interventions can be adopted that may maximize not only pregnancy rates but also the ability to achieve a live birth while minimizing the iatrogenic risk of OHSS. They include lifestyle modification which can aid in weight loss and potentially enhance IVF outcomes. In addition to lifestyle modification, numerous adjuvants especially myo-inositol (supplemented with melatonin and/or folic acid) can enhance oocyte quality and potentially IVF pregnancy rates. While the evidence concerning vitamin D supplementation is tantalizing, additional RCTs are necessary before its role can be understood in enhancing IVF success rates. Additional strategies which can improve outcomes in PCOS patients include, using GnRH antagonist protocols for IVF stimulation to minimize OHSS risk. OHSS risk can also be mitigated using vitamin D repletion, GnRH agonist triggers and dopamine agonists following oocyte pick-up. As embryos are obtained, deferring embryo transfer until a subsequent cycle by adopting a freeze-all strategy can further enhance outcomes by optimizing endometrial receptivity. Finally, while programmed FET protocol can overcome the lack of consistent ovulation, limited evidence indicates that using a Letrozole-stimulated FET protocol can offer similar pregnancy rates and potentially improve obstetrical outcomes.

Despite these advances, there is ever room for improvement and additional questions remain as to how IVF outcomes can be further enhanced in PCOS patients. These include methods to further assess and enhance endometrial receptivity as well as methods to limit obstetrical complications in those patients undergoing programmed FET. This will require additional diligent analysis of the biochemistry and pathophysiology of PCOS and a deeper understanding of the dynamics of embryo implantation.

Data Availability

Not applicable, please ‘Methods’ section for article search strategy.



Polycystic ovarian syndrome


pregnancy rate


live birth rate


ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome


combined oral contraceptives


vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2


Frozen thaw embryo transfer


gestational diabetes


hypertensive disorders of pregnancy


pre-term birth


intrauterine growth restriction


  1. Balen AH, Morley LC, Misso M, Franks S, Legro RS, Wijeyaratne CN, et al. The management of anovulatory infertility in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2016;22(6):687–708.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. March WA, Moore VM, Willson KJ, Phillips DI, Norman RJ, Davies MJ. The prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome in a community sample assessed under contrasting diagnostic criteria. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(2):544–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Teede HJ, Misso ML, Deeks AA, Moran LJ, Stuckey BG, Wong JL, et al. Assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome: summary of an evidence-based guideline. Med J Aust. 2011;195(6):65–112.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Pellatt L, Hanna L, Brincat M, Galea R, Brain H, Whitehead S, et al. Granulosa cell production of anti-Müllerian hormone is increased in polycystic ovaries. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92(1):240–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Pellatt L, Rice S, Mason HD. Anti-Müllerian hormone and polycystic ovary syndrome: a mountain too high? Reproduction. 2010;139(5):825–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pierre A, Peigné M, Grynberg M, Arouche N, Taieb J, Hesters L, et al. Loss of LH-induced down-regulation of anti-Müllerian hormone receptor expression may contribute to anovulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(3):762–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Carlsen SM, Vanky E, Fleming R. Anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations in androgen-suppressed women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(7):1732–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Tal R, Seifer DB, Khanimov M, Malter HE, Grazi RV, Leader B. Characterization of women with elevated antimüllerian hormone levels (AMH): correlation of AMH with polycystic ovarian syndrome phenotypes and assisted reproductive technology outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(1):59e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Palomba S. Is fertility reduced in ovulatory women with polycystic ovary syndrome? An opinion paper. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(9):2421–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Palomba S, Piltonen TT, Giudice LC. Endometrial function in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a comprehensive review. Hum Reprod Update. 2021;27(3):584–618.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Palomba S, Daolio J, La Sala GB. Oocyte competence in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2017;28(3):186–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Palomba S, de Wilde MA, Falbo A, Koster MP, La Sala GB, Fauser BC. Pregnancy complications in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(5):575–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Legro RS, Brzyski RG, Diamond MP, Coutifaris C, Schlaff WD, Casson P, et al. Letrozole versus clomiphene for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(2):119–29.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Huang PL. A comprehensive definition for metabolic syndrome. Dis Model Mech. 2009;2(5–6):231–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Zhen Y, Yang P, Dong R, Wu Y, Sang Y, Du X, et al. Effect of HbA1C detection on the diagnostic screening for glucose metabolic disorders in polycystic ovary syndrome. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2014;41(1):58–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ehrmann DA, Barnes RB, Rosenfield RL, Cavaghan MK, Imperial J. Prevalence of impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Diabetes Care. 1999;22(1):141–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Teede HJ, Misso ML, Costello MF, Dokras A, Laven J, Moran L, et al. Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(9):1602–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Gao L, Li M, Wang Y, Zeng Z, Xie Y, Liu G, et al. Overweight and high serum total cholesterol were risk factors for the outcome of IVF/ICSI cycles in PCOS patients and a PCOS-specific predictive model of live birth rate was established. J Endocrinol Invest. 2020;43(9):1221–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bailey AP, Hawkins LK, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Yanushpolsky EH. Effect of body mass index on in vitro fertilization outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(2):163e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Mena GP, Mielke GI, Brown WJ. The effect of physical activity on reproductive health outcomes in young women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2019;25(5):541–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wei D, Shi Y, Li J, Wang Z, Zhang L, Sun Y, et al. Effect of pretreatment with oral contraceptives and progestins on IVF outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(2):354–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hatirnaz E, Hatirnaz S, Kanat-Pektas M, Dokuzeylul Gungor N, Erol O, Kalyoncu S, et al. The impact of timing for estrogen supplementation in polycystic ovary syndrome patients undergoing primed in vitro maturation. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021;47(8):2684–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Garg D, Tal R. The role of AMH in the pathophysiology of polycystic ovarian syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33(1):15–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Gerli S, Papaleo E, Ferrari A, Di Renzo GC. Randomized, double blind placebo-controlled trial: effects of myo-inositol on ovarian function and metabolic factors in women with PCOS. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2007;11(5):347–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Papaleo E, Unfer V, Baillargeon JP, Fusi F, Occhi F, De Santis L. Myo-inositol may improve oocyte quality in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. A prospective, controlled, randomized trial. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(5):1750–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Laganà AS, Vitagliano A, Noventa M, Ambrosini G, D’Anna R. Myo-inositol supplementation reduces the amount of gonadotropins and length of ovarian stimulation in women undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;298(4):675–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Zheng X, Lin D, Zhang Y, Lin Y, Song J, Li S, et al. Inositol supplement improves clinical pregnancy rate in infertile women undergoing ovulation induction for ICSI or IVF-ET. Med (Baltim). 2017;96(49):e8842.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Russo M, Forte G, Montanino Oliva M, Laganà AS, Unfer V. Melatonin and Myo-Inositol: supporting Reproduction from the oocyte to Birth. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(16).

  29. Rizzo P, Raffone E, Benedetto V. Effect of the treatment with myo-inositol plus folic acid plus melatonin in comparison with a treatment with myo-inositol plus folic acid on oocyte quality and pregnancy outcome in IVF cycles. A prospective, clinical trial. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2010;14(6):555–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Fernandez RC, Moore VM, Van Ryswyk EM, Varcoe TJ, Rodgers RJ, March WA, et al. Sleep disturbances in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: prevalence, pathophysiology, impact and management strategies. Nat Sci Sleep. 2018;10:45–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Pacchiarotti A, Carlomagno G, Antonini G, Pacchiarotti A. Effect of myo-inositol and melatonin versus myo-inositol, in a randomized controlled trial, for improving in vitro fertilization of patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32(1):69–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Regidor PA, Schindler AE, Lesoine B, Druckman R. Management of women with PCOS using myo-inositol and folic acid. New clinical data and review of the literature. Horm Mol Biol Clin Investig. 2018;34(2).

  33. Wdowiak A. Myoinositol improves embryo development in PCOS Patients undergoing ICSI. Int J Endocrinol. 2016;2016:6273298.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kamenov Z, Kolarov G, Gateva A, Carlomagno G, Genazzani AD. Ovulation induction with myo-inositol alone and in combination with clomiphene citrate in polycystic ovarian syndrome patients with insulin resistance. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2015;31(2):131–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Montanino Oliva M, Buonomo G, Calcagno M, Unfer V. Effects of myo-inositol plus alpha-lactalbumin in myo-inositol-resistant PCOS women. J Ovarian Res. 2018;11(1):38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Hernandez Marin I, Picconi O, Laganà AS, Costabile L, Unfer V. A multicenter clinical study with myo-inositol and alpha-lactalbumin in mexican and italian PCOS patients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2021;25(8):3316–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zheng Y, Pan Y, Li P, Wang Z, Wang Z, Shi Y. Ovarian sensitivity decreased significantly in patients with insulin resistance undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Front Physiol. 2021;12:809419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tang T, Glanville J, Orsi N, Barth JH, Balen AH. The use of metformin for women with PCOS undergoing IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(6):1416–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Abdalmageed OS, Farghaly TA, Abdelaleem AA, Abdelmagied AE, Ali MK, Abbas AM. Impact of metformin on IVF outcomes in overweight and obese women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a Randomized double-blind controlled trial. Reprod Sci. 2019;26(10):1336–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Jacob SL, Brewer C, Tang T, Picton HM, Barth JH, Balen AH. A short course of metformin does not reduce OHSS in a GnRH antagonist cycle for women with PCOS undergoing IVF: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(12):2756–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tso LO, Costello MF, Albuquerque LET, Andriolo RB, Macedo CR. Metformin treatment before and during IVF or ICSI in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;12(12):Cd006105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Salamun V, Jensterle M, Janez A, Vrtacnik Bokal E. Liraglutide increases IVF pregnancy rates in obese PCOS women with poor response to first-line reproductive treatments: a pilot randomized study. Eur J Endocrinol. 2018;179(1):1–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Trummer C, Schwetz V, Kollmann M, Wölfler M, Münzker J, Pieber TR, et al. Effects of vitamin D supplementation on metabolic and endocrine parameters in PCOS: a randomized-controlled trial. Eur J Nutr. 2019;58(5):2019–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Raja-Khan N, Shah J, Stetter CM, Lott ME, Kunselman AR, Dodson WC, et al. High-dose vitamin D supplementation and measures of insulin sensitivity in polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized, controlled pilot trial. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(6):1740–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Abadia L, Gaskins AJ, Chiu YH, Williams PL, Keller M, Wright DL, et al. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentrations and treatment outcomes of women undergoing assisted reproduction. Am J Clin Nutr. 2016;104(3):729–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Aleyasin A, Hosseini MA, Mahdavi A, Safdarian L, Fallahi P, Mohajeri MR, et al. Predictive value of the level of vitamin D in follicular fluid on the outcome of assisted reproductive technology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2011;159(1):132–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. van de Vijver A, Drakopoulos P, Van Landuyt L, Vaiarelli A, Blockeel C, Santos-Ribeiro S, et al. Vitamin D deficiency and pregnancy rates following frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(8):1749–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chu J, Gallos I, Tobias A, Robinson L, Kirkman-Brown J, Dhillon-Smith R, et al. Vitamin D and assisted reproductive treatment outcome: a prospective cohort study. Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Irani M, Seifer DB, Grazi RV, Irani S, Rosenwaks Z, Tal R. Vitamin D decreases serum VEGF correlating with clinical improvement in vitamin D-Deficient women with PCOS: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Nutrients. 2017;9(4).

  50. Irani M, Seifer DB, Grazi RV, Julka N, Bhatt D, Kalgi B, et al. Vitamin D supplementation decreases TGF-β1 bioavailability in PCOS: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(11):4307–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Irani M, Minkoff H, Seifer DB, Merhi Z. Vitamin D increases serum levels of the soluble receptor for advanced glycation end products in women with PCOS. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(5):E886–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lainas TG, Sfontouris IA, Zorzovilis IZ, Petsas GK, Lainas GT, Alexopoulou E, et al. Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated for IVF: a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT). Hum Reprod. 2010;25(3):683–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Toftager M, Bogstad J, Bryndorf T, Løssl K, Roskær J, Holland T, et al. Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(6):1253–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kadoura S, Alhalabi M, Nattouf AH. Conventional GnRH antagonist protocols versus long GnRH agonist protocol in IVF/ICSI cycles of polycystic ovary syndrome women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):4456.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Xiao ZN, Peng JL, Yang J, Xu WM. Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: comparison of clinical outcomes and ovarian response. Curr Med Sci. 2019;39(3):431–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Huang TC, Huang MZ, Seow KM, Yang IJ, Pan SP, Chen MJ, et al. Progestin primed ovarian stimulation using corifollitropin alfa in PCOS women effectively prevents LH surge and reduces injection burden compared to GnRH antagonist protocol. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):22732.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Abe T, Yabuuchi A, Ezoe K, Skaletsky H, Fukuda J, Ueno S, et al. Success rates in minimal stimulation cycle IVF with clomiphene citrate only. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37(2):297–304.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Fischer D, Reisenbüchler C, Rösner S, Haussmann J, Wimberger P, Goeckenjan M, Avoiding OHSS. Controlled ovarian low-dose stimulation in women with PCOS. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016;76(6):718–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Datta AK, Maheshwari A, Felix N, Campbell S, Nargund G. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2021;27(2):229–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Engmann L, DiLuigi A, Schmidt D, Nulsen J, Maier D, Benadiva C. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce oocyte maturation after cotreatment with GnRH antagonist in high-risk patients undergoing in vitro fertilization prevents the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a prospective randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(1):84–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Youssef MA, Van der Veen F, Al-Inany HG, Mochtar MH, Griesinger G, Nagi Mohesen M et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist-assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(10):Cd008046.

  62. Humaidan P, Ejdrup Bredkjaer H, Westergaard LG, Yding Andersen C. 1,500 IU human chorionic gonadotropin administered at oocyte retrieval rescues the luteal phase when gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used for ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(3):847–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Radesic B, Tremellen K. Oocyte maturation employing a GnRH agonist in combination with low-dose hCG luteal rescue minimizes the severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome while maintaining excellent pregnancy rates. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(12):3437–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Papanikolaou EG, Verpoest W, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P, Tournaye H. A novel method of luteal supplementation with recombinant luteinizing hormone when a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used instead of human chorionic gonadotropin for ovulation triggering: a randomized prospective proof of concept study. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(3):1174–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Gomez R, Gonzalez-Izquierdo M, Zimmermann RC, Novella-Maestre E, Alonso-Muriel I, Sanchez-Criado J, et al. Low-dose dopamine agonist administration blocks vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-mediated vascular hyperpermeability without altering VEGF receptor 2-dependent luteal angiogenesis in a rat ovarian hyperstimulation model. Endocrinology. 2006;147(11):5400–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Gómez R, Ferrero H, Delgado-Rosas F, Gaytan M, Morales C, Zimmermann RC, et al. Evidences for the existence of a low dopaminergic tone in polycystic ovarian syndrome: implications for OHSS development and treatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(8):2484–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Alvarez C, Martí-Bonmatí L, Novella-Maestre E, Sanz R, Gómez R, Fernández-Sánchez M, et al. Dopamine agonist cabergoline reduces hemoconcentration and ascites in hyperstimulated women undergoing assisted reproduction. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2007;92(8):2931–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Rubenfeld ES, Dahan MH. Does the timing of cabergoline administration impact rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome? Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2021;64(4):345–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Shrem G, Steiner N, Balayla J, Volodarsky-Perel A, Tannus S, Son WY, et al. Use of cabergoline and post-collection GnRH antagonist administration for prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39(3):433–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Tehraninejad ES, Hafezi M, Arabipoor A, Aziminekoo E, Chehrazi M, Bahmanabadi A. Comparison of cabergoline and intravenous albumin in the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(3):259–64.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Chen ZJ, Shi Y, Sun Y, Zhang B, Liang X, Cao Y, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryos for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(6):523–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Santos-Ribeiro S, Mackens S, Popovic-Todorovic B, Racca A, Polyzos NP, Van Landuyt L, et al. The freeze-all strategy versus agonist triggering with low-dose hCG for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI for high responders: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2020;35(12):2808–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Man Y, Bian Y, Zhao S, Zhao R, Xu X, Wei D, et al. The effect of different endometrial preparations on women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing initial frozen embryo transfer: a historical cohort analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(6):1116–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kollmann M, Martins WP, Lima ML, Craciunas L, Nastri CO, Richardson A, et al. Strategies for improving outcome of assisted reproduction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;48(6):709–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Zeng MF, Zhou X, Duan JL. Stimulated cycle versus artificial cycle for frozen embryo transfer in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a Meta-analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2021;37(4):294–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Zhang J, Wei M, Bian X, Wu L, Zhang S, Mao X, et al. Letrozole-induced frozen embryo transfer cycles are associated with a lower risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy among women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225(1):59.e1-.e9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Jiang NX, Li XL. The Disorders of Endometrial Receptivity in PCOS and its mechanisms. Reprod Sci. 2021.

  78. De Frène V, Vansteelandt S, T’Sjoen G, Gerris J, Somers S, Vercruysse L, et al. A retrospective study of the pregnancy, delivery and neonatal outcome in overweight versus normal weight women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(10):2333–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Kollmann M, Klaritsch P, Martins WP, Guenther F, Schneider V, Herzog SA, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with PCOS: comparison of different diagnostic definitions. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(10):2396–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Boomsma CM, Eijkemans MJ, Hughes EG, Visser GH, Fauser BC, Macklon NS. A meta-analysis of pregnancy outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12(6):673–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Wan HL, Hui PW, Li HW, Ng EH. Obstetric outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome and isolated polycystic ovaries undergoing in vitro fertilization: a retrospective cohort analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015;28(4):475–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Lin J, Huang J, Wang N, Kuang Y, Cai R. Effects of pre-pregnancy body mass index on pregnancy and perinatal outcomes in women with PCOS undergoing frozen embryo transfer. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):487.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


Not applicable.


No funding courses were used in the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



AMK and DBS equally contributed to the preparation of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander M. Kotlyar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

AMK declares no competing interests. DBS declares royalties from a license agreement between Rutgers Medical School/MGH and Beckman Coulter for Anti-Müllerian hormone as a measure of ovarian reserve and Medical Advisory Board for Womens Integrated Network Honorarium outside the submitted work.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kotlyar, A.M., Seifer, D.B. Women with PCOS who undergo IVF: a comprehensive review of therapeutic strategies for successful outcomes. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 21, 70 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • PCOS
  • In-vitro fertilization
  • Ovarian hyperstimulation
  • OHSS
  • AMH