目的 比较克罗米芬（CC）双刺激方案和自然周期取卵后黄体期促排方案在波塞冬预期低预后人群的临床结局。 方法 回顾性分析2016年5月至2023年12月期间在郑州大学第三附属医院生殖医学中心行促排体外受精/单精子卵细胞浆内注射（IVF/ICSI）助孕的患者资料，按波塞冬（POSEIDON）标准分组，纳入POSEIDON 3组和4组人群，采用CC双刺激方案（CC组）和自然周期取卵后黄体期促排方案（自然周期组），分析两组患者的基础数据、促排和临床结局，主要观察指标为获卵数、累积临床妊娠率和累积活产率，并通过二元logistic回归探究促排卵方案对临床结局的影响。 结果 两种方案在总体上获卵数、累积临床妊娠率和活产率差异均无统计学意义（均P > 0.05），POSEIDON 4组中，卵泡期CC组的获卵数较高，而黄体期自然周期组的获卵数较高，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。经logistic回归分析，促排卵方案并不影响POSEIDON 3组和4组人群的累积妊娠率和累积活产率（P > 0.05）。 结论 对于POSEIDON预期低预后患者来说，自然周期取卵后黄体期促排方案临床有效性不低于CC双刺激方案。POSEIDON 4组自然周期组患者在卵巢储备AMH低于CC组的前提下，经过自然周期取卵后黄体期促排，最终获得和CC组相似的临床结局，因此，对于POSEIDON 4组患者，自然周期取卵后黄体期促排方案更值得临床推荐。

Objective To compare the clinical outcomes of the clomiphene citrate（CC） dual stimulation protocol and the luteal phase ovarian stimulation protocol after natural cycle oocytes retrieved in POSEIDON patients with low expected prognosis. Methods The clinical data from patients who underwent in vitro fertilization （IVF） or intracytoplasmic sperm injection （ICSI） at the Reproductive Center of the Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from May 2016 to December 2023 were analyzed retrospectively. According to the POSEIDON criteria， including POSEIDON group 3 and group 4， which were treated with the CC dual stimulation protocol（the CC group） and the luteal-phase ovarian stimulation protocol after the natural cycle oocytes retrieval（the natural cycle group）. The basic data and clinical outcomes of the two ovulation protocols were analyzed， and the main observations included the number of oocytes retrieved， the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate and the cumulative live birth rate， and explored the impact of ovulation promotion regimens on clinical outcomes through binary logistic regression. Results On the whole，there was no significant difference in the total number of oocytes retrieved， cumulative clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate between the CC group and the natural cycle group （all P >0.05）， And in POSEIDON group 4， the numbers of oocytes retrieved in the follicular phase of the CC group were higher than those in the natural cycle group， whereas the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase of natural cycle group were higher， and the difference was statistically significant （P < 0.05）. After logistic regression analysis， the ovulation stimulation protocols did not affect the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate of POSEIDON 3 and 4 group （P > 0.05）. Conclusions For the POSEIDON patients with a low expected prognosis， the clinical effectiveness of the luteal phase ovarian stimulation protocol after natural cycle oocytes retrieved is not inferior to that of the CC dual stimulation protocol. In POSEIDON group 4， on the premise that the AMH levels of patients in the natural cycle group were lower than those in the CC group， who underwent natural cycle ovulation followed by luteal phase induction achieved similar clinical outcomes to those of the CC dual stimulation protocol group. Therefore， the luteal phase ovarian stimulation protocol after natural cycle oocytes retrieved should be more clinically recommended for POSEIDON group 4 patients.