Comparing ART outcomes in women with endometriosis after GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation: a systematic review

被引:6
|
作者
Kuan, Kevin K. W. [4 ,5 ]
Omoseni, Sean [4 ]
Tello, Javier A. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ St Andrews, Sch Med, St Andrews KY16 9TF, Scotland
[2] Univ St Andrews, Biomed Sci Res Complex, St Andrews, Scotland
[3] Univ St Andrews, Ctr Biophoton, St Andrews, Scotland
[4] Univ St Andrews, Sch Med, St Andrews, Scotland
[5] Univ Edinburgh, Edinburgh Med Sch, Edinburgh, Scotland
关键词
assisted reproductive technology; endometriosis; GnRH agonist; GnRH antagonist; infertility; ovarian stimulation; FERTILIZATION RATE; LIVE BIRTH; IVF; PROTOCOLS; HYPERSTIMULATION; INFERTILITY; CYCLES;
D O I
10.1177/20420188231173325
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background:Endometriosis is an oestrogen-dependent disease that can cause subfertility in women who may require assisted reproductive technology (ART) to achieve their pregnancy goals. Objectives:The aim of this study was to compare ART outcomes in women with endometriosis following the long GnRH-agonist controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol with those taking the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol. Data Sources and Methods:MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched in June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the long GnRH-agonist COS protocol and the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol in women with all stages/subtypes of endometriosis were included. Data were synthesized into comprehensive tables for systematic review. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklists were used for the risk of bias assessment of non-randomized studies and randomized studies, and all the included studies were deemed to have acceptable quality. Main Results:Eight studies (one RCT and seven observational) with 2695 patients (2761 cycles) were included. Most studies generally reported non-significant differences in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates regardless of the COS protocol used. However, the GnRH-agonist protocol may yield a higher total number of oocytes retrieved, especially mature oocytes. Conversely, the GnRH-antagonist protocol required a shorter COS duration and lower gonadotrophin dose. Adverse outcomes, such as rates of cycle cancellation and miscarriage, were similar between both COS protocols. Conclusion:Both the long GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist COS protocols generally yield similar pregnancy outcomes. However, the long GnRH-agonist protocol may be associated with a higher cumulative pregnancy rate due to the higher number of retrieved oocytes available for cryopreservation. The underlying mechanisms of the two COS protocols on the female reproductive tract remain unclear. Clinicians should consider treatment costs, stage/subtype of endometriosis and pregnancy goals of their patients when selecting a GnRH analogue for COS. A well-powered RCT is needed to minimize the risk of bias and compare the risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Registration:This review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO under Registration No. CRD42022327604.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Similar outcome for cryopreserved embryo transfer following GnRH-antagonist/GnRH-agonist, GnRH-antagonist/HCG or long protocol ovarian stimulation
    Eldar-Geva, Talia
    Zylber-Haran, Edit
    Babayof, Rachel
    Halevy-Shalem, Tamar
    Ben-Chetrit, Avraharn
    Tsafrir, Avi
    Varshaver, Irit
    Brooks, Baruch
    Margalioth, Ehud J.
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2007, 14 (02) : 148 - 154
  • [22] IVF/ICSI outcomes of the OCP plus GnRH agonist protocol versus the OCP plus GnRH antagonist fixed protocol in women with PCOS: a randomized trial
    Haydardedeoglu, Bulent
    Kilicdag, Esra Bulgan
    Parlakgumus, Ayse Huriye
    Zeyneloglu, Hulusi Bulent
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2012, 286 (03) : 763 - 769
  • [23] GnRH antagonist versus follicular-phase single-dose GnRH agonist protocol in patients of normal ovarian responses during controlled ovarian stimulation
    Geng, Yudi
    Xun, Yang
    Hu, Shiqiao
    Lai, Qiaohong
    Jin, Lei
    GYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2019, 35 (04) : 309 - 313
  • [24] Controlled ovarian stimulation for endometriosis patients with ultra-long GnRH-agonist or GnRH-antagonist protocols: A retrospective study by propensity score matching
    Chen, Qingfen
    Du, Shengrong
    Lin, Yunhong
    Zheng, Beihong
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2023, 49 (05) : 1366 - 1374
  • [25] What is the value of anti-Mullerian hormone in predicting the response to ovarian stimulation with GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols?
    Knez, Jure
    Kovacic, Borut
    Medved, Maruska
    Vlaisavljevic, Veljko
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2015, 13
  • [26] GnRH antagonist protocol versus progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Deng, Renhe
    Wang, Jinyuan
    He, Junhui
    Lei, Xin
    Zi, Dan
    Nong, Weihua
    Lei, Xiaocan
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2024, 309 (04) : 1151 - 1163
  • [27] GnRH agonist for triggering final oocyte maturation in the GnRH antagonist ovarian hyperstimulation protocol: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Griesinger, G
    Diedrich, K
    Devroey, P
    Kolibianakis, EM
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE, 2006, 12 (02) : 159 - 168
  • [28] GnRH Antagonist Protocol Versus GnRH Agonist Long Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study on Clinical Outcomes and Maternal-Neonatal Safety
    Zhu, Jieru
    Xing, Weijie
    Li, Tao
    Lin, Hui
    Ou, Jianping
    FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2022, 13
  • [29] Comparisons of GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Wang, Ruolin
    Lin, Shouren
    Wang, Yong
    Qian, Weiping
    Zhou, Liang
    PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (04):
  • [30] Oral GnRH Antagonist Ovarian Suppression After Escape From GnRH Agonist in Breast Cancer Patients
    Coyne, Kathryn
    Silverman, Paula
    Liu, James H.
    CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2020, 20 (05) : E551 - E554