Journals / GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine / 2013 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3

Normal ve düşük yanıtlı hastalarda kontrollü ovarian hiperstimülasyon protokollerinin ıvf sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması

Comparison of controlled ovarian stimulation protocols on ıvf outcome in normal and poor responders

Pages
165–170
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to recommend GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist proto- cols for patients considered “normal’ and ‘poor responder’

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study is determining the influence of luteal long GnRH agonist and GnRH an- tagonist protocols on IVF/ICSI cycle outcome in group of patients considered “normal responder” and influence of luteal long GnRH agonist, microdose flare-up agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols on IVF/ICSI cycle outcome in a group of patients considered “poor responder”.
📊
Key Findings & Data:STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis performed in the Hacettepe University School of Medicine IVF Center, Ankara, from January 2005 to December 2007.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to recommend GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist proto- cols for patients considered “normal’ and ‘poor responder’
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2005 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Aim of this study is determining the influence of luteal long GnRH agonist and GnRH an- tagonist protocols on IVF/ICSI cycle outcome in group of patients considered “normal responder” and influence of luteal long GnRH agonist, microdose flare-up agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols on IVF/ICSI cycle outcome in a group of patients considered “poor responder”. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis performed in the Hacettepe University School of Medicine IVF Center, Ankara, from January 2005 to December 2007. Normal responders (first arm) were stimulated either with luteal long GnRH analogues, (193 patients and 300 cycles) or with GnRH antag- onists (215 patients and 300 cycles). Poor responders (second arm) were stimulated either with luteal long GnRH analogues, (20 patients and 32 cycles), with GnRH antagonists (21 patients and 45 cycles) or microdose flare-up protocol (27 patients and 74 cycles). RESULTS: In the first arm; the clinical pregnancy, implantation and multiple pregnancy rates were com- parable between the two groups in the first arm. In the second arm; clinical pregnancy, implantation and multiple pregnancy rates were comparable between three groups. CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence to recommend GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist proto- cols for patients considered “normal’ and ‘poor responder’

Özet

AMAÇ: Normal over yanıtlı hastalarda luteal long agonist ve antagonist protokollerinin, düşük over yanıtlı hastalarda luteal long agonist, antagonist ve mikrodoz flare-up protokollerinin IVF/ICSI sonuçlarına etkisini belirlemek GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Bu çalışma Ocak 2005-Aralık 2007 ta- rihleri arasında Hacettepe Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Tüp Be- bek Ünitesinde normal ve düşük over yanıtlı hastalarda yapıl- mış retrospektif bir değerlendirmedir. Normal over yanıtlı (bi- rinci kol) luteal long agonist protokol ile stimüle edilmiş (193 hasta 300 siklus) ve antagonist protokol ile stimüle edilmiş (215 hasta 300 siklus) hastalar değerlendirilmiştir. Düşük over yanıtlı (ikinci kol) mikrodoz flare-up protokolü ile stimüle edil- miş (27 hasta 74 siklus), luteal long agonist protokol ile stimü- le edilmiş (20 hasta 32 siklus) ve antagonist protokol ile stimü- le edilmiş (21 hasta 45 siklus) hastalar değerlendirilmiştir. BULGULAR: İlk kolda klinik gebelik, implantasyon ve çoğul gebelik oranları arasında iki stimulasyon protokolü arasında fark saptanmamıştır. İkinci kolda; klinik gebelik, implantasyon ve çoğul gebelik oranları arasında 3 grup arasında fark sap- tanmamıştır. SONUÇ: Normal ve kötü yanıtlı olgularda agonist protokolün antagonist protokole üstünlüğü gösterilmemiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ESİNLER, D., BOYNUKALIN, F. K., ESİNLER, İ., AKSU, T. (2013). Normal ve düşük yanıtlı hastalarda kontrollü ovarian hiperstimülasyon protokollerinin ıvf sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması. GORM:Gynecology Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3, 165–170. https://ajindex.com/articles/227004

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Hughes EG, Fedorkow DM, Daya S, Sagle MA, Van de Koppel P, Collins JA. The routine use of gonadotropin-re- leasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: a meta-analysis of random- ized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 1992;58:888-96
  2. Maheshwari A, Gibreel A, Siristatidis CS, Bhattacharya S. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;10:CD00691 3. Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, et al. Gonadot- rophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted repro- ductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 11:CD001750
  3. Nardo LG, Fleming R, Howles CM,et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation no longer exists: welcome to the age of individualized ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2011;23:141-8
  4. Huirne JA, Homburg R, Lambalk CB. Are GnRH antago- nists comparable to agonists for use in IVF? Hum Reprod 2007;22:2805-13 6. Marci R, Caserta D, Lisi F et al. In vitro fertilization stim- ulation protocol for normal responder patients. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013;29:109-12 7. Kolibianakis EM, Collins J, Tarlatzis BC, Devroey P, Diedrich K, Griesinger G. Among patients treated for IVF with gonadotrophins and GnRH analogues, is the proba- bility of live birth dependent on the type of analogue used? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:651-71
  5. Akman M, Erden H, Tosun S et al. Comparison of agonis- tic flare-up protocol and antagonistic multiple dose proto- col in ovarian stimulation of poor responders: results of a prospective randomized trial. Human Reproduction 2001; 16:868-70
  6. Cheung LP, Lam PM, Lok IH, et al. GnRH antagonist vs. long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergo- ing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Human Repro- duction 2005;20:616-21
  7. Craft I, Gorgy A, Hill J, Menon D, Podsiadly B. Will GnRH antagonists provide new hope for patients consid- ered ‘‘difficult responders’’ to GnRH agonist protocols? Human Reproduction 1999;14:2959-62
  8. Nikolettos N, Al-Hasani S, Felberbaum R, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol: a novel method of ovarian stimulation in poor responders. European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Repro- ductive Biology 2001;97:202-7
  9. Kahraman K, Berker B, Atabekoglu CS, et al. Microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist flare-up protocol versus multiple dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone an- tagonist pro