Comparison of a novel flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol and the flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol for assisted reproductive technology

被引:64
|
作者
Yildiz, Sule [1 ]
Turkgeldi, Engin [1 ]
Angun, Berk [2 ]
Eraslan, Alper [2 ]
Urman, Bulent [3 ]
Ata, Baris [3 ]
机构
[1] Koc Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Istanbul, Turkey
[2] Dunya IVF Ctr, Kyrenia, Northern Cyprus, Turkey
[3] Koc Univ, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
Progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS); medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA); progesterone; ovarian stimulation; GnRH antagonist; in vitro fertilization; gamete donation; MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE; INFERTILE WOMEN; MENSTRUAL-CYCLE; HYPERSTIMULATION; OUTCOMES; SURGE;
D O I
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.06.009
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To determine whether a flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) protocol is effective for preventing premature ovulation. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Private assisted reproduction center. Patient(s): Eighty-seven oocyte donors and 191 recipients of fresh oocytes. Intervention(s): Each donor was stimulated with a flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in one cycle and with the new fPPOS protocol in the other, within a period of 6 months. FSH was started on cycle day 2-3, and 0.25 mg/day GnRH antagonist or 10 mg/day medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) was started on stimulation day 7 or when the leading follicle reached 14 mm, whichever came first. Main Outcome Measure(s): Duration of stimulation, gonadotropin consumption, duration of GnRH antagonist or MPA administration, number of metaphase II oocytes, and pregnancy rates in fresh oocyte recipients. Results: Duration of stimulation was 11 (10-11) days in both groups. Total gonadotropin consumption was similar. Pituitary suppression was started on day 7 and lasted for 5 days in each group. There were no premature ovulations in any group. The fPPOS yielded a significantly higher number of cumulus oocyte complexes than GnRH antagonist cycles (33 [21-39] vs. 26 [18-36], respectively). Likewise, the fPPOS generated significantly more metaphase II oocytes than GnRH antagonist cycles (24 [17-34] vs. 21 [15-28], respectively). Recipients of fresh oocytes from fPPOS and GnRH antagonist cycles had similar cleavage, blastulation, implantation, and live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates (50% vs. 48.6%). Conclusion(s): FPPOS with MPA seems to be an effective choice for preventing premature ovulation in women undergoing ovarian stimulation without compromising oocyte quality. ((C) 2019 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
引用
收藏
页码:677 / 683
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Luteinising hormone-based protocol versus traditional flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in women with normal ovarian response: study protocol for a non-inferiority trial
    Lv, Ya-su
    Li, Yuan
    Liu, Shan
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (08):
  • [22] Intercycle variability of the ovarian response in patients undergoing repeated stimulation with corifollitropin alfa in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol
    Rombauts, Luk
    Lambalk, Cornelis B.
    Schultze-Mosgau, Askan
    van Kuijk, Jacqueline
    Verweij, Pierre
    Gates, Davis
    Gordon, Keith
    Griesinger, Georg
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2015, 104 (04) : 884 - +
  • [23] Management of poor responders: can outcomes be improved with a novel gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist/letrozole protocol?
    Schoolcraft, William B.
    Surrey, Eric S.
    Minjarez, Debra A.
    Stevens, John M.
    Gardner, David K.
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2008, 89 (01) : 151 - 156
  • [24] The effect of premature luteinizing hormone increases among high ovarian responders undergoing a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol
    Geng, Yudi
    Lai, Qiaohong
    Xun, Yang
    Jin, Lei
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2018, 142 (01) : 97 - 103
  • [25] The association between treatment parameters on the day of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist initiation during a flexible protocol and oocyte maturation rate
    Wertheimer, Avital
    Danieli-Gruber, Shir
    Hochberg, Alyssa
    Oron, Galia
    Sapir, Onit
    Shufaro, Yoel
    Ben-Haroush, Avi
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2020, 20 (02) : 127 - 131
  • [26] Letrozole and gonadotropins versus luteal estradiol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in women with a prior low response to ovarian stimulation
    Elassar, Alyaa
    Engmann, Lawrence
    Nulsen, John
    Benadiva, Claudio
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2011, 95 (07) : 2330 - 2334
  • [27] Impact of Luteinizing Hormone on IVF/ICSI Assisted Reproduction on the Initiation Day of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonist Protocol
    Zhang, Li-Jia
    Liu, Dun
    Xu, Li-Qing
    Wei, Jin-Yan
    Fan, Lin
    Zhang, Xi-Qian
    Liu, Feng-Hua
    ENDOCRINE METABOLIC & IMMUNE DISORDERS-DRUG TARGETS, 2025, 25 (05) : 400 - 410
  • [28] Comparison of luteal estradiol patch and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist suppression protocol before gonadotropin stimulation versus microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol for patients with a history of poor in vitro fertilization outcomes
    Weitzman, Vanessa N.
    Engmann, Lawrence
    DiLuigi, Andrea
    Maier, Donald
    Nulsen, John
    Benadiva, Claudio
    FERTILITY AND STERILITY, 2009, 92 (01) : 226 - 230
  • [29] Comparison of progesterone protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in terms of preventing premature LH surge and assisted reproductive technology outcome in infertile women: a randomized controlled trial
    Masoome Jabarpour
    Sara Pouri
    Ashraf Aleyasin
    Maryam Shabani Nashtaei
    Aida Najafian
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2024, 309 : 1999 - 2008
  • [30] Comparison of a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol with a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome who are participating in an IVF programme: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
    Wang, Ningling
    Zhu, Qianqian
    Ma, Meng
    Liang, Zhou
    Tao, Yu
    Wang, Yun
    Kuang, Yanping
    BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (12):