Journals / Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences / 2017 / Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of the standard GnRH antagonist protocol and the luteal phase estradiol/ GnRH antagonist priming protocol in poor ovarian responders

Pages
470–475
Publication Date
2022-11-05
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)

There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy (11.3% vs. 13.2%) or live birth rates per patient (3.8% vs. 9.4%) and clinical pregnancy (18.8% vs. 22.6%) or live birth rates per embryo transfer (6.3% vs. 12.9%) between the groups.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aim: The aim of the study was to compare the luteal estradiol patch/GnRH antagonists priming protocol (LPP) with the standard GnRH antagonist protocol in poor ovarian responders (PORs) in terms of the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment Materials and methods: IVF outcomes of 265 cycles in 265 patients (106 in the LPP group, 159 in the standard GnRH antagonist group) were evaluated retrospectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Mean length of stimulation (11.4 ± 2.7 vs. 10.0 ± 2.7 days; P < 0.05) and the total gonadotropin dose (3403 ± 1060 vs. 2984 ± 1112) used were significantly greater in the LPP group than in the standard GnRH antagonist protocol group.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy (11.3% vs. 13.2%) or live birth rates per patient (3.8% vs. 9.4%) and clinical pregnancy (18.8% vs. 22.6%) or live birth rates per embryo transfer (6.3% vs. 12.9%) between the groups.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Background/aim: The aim of the study was to compare the luteal estradiol patch/GnRH antagonists priming protocol (LPP) with the standard GnRH antagonist protocol in poor ovarian responders (PORs) in terms of the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment Materials and methods: IVF outcomes of 265 cycles in 265 patients (106 in the LPP group, 159 in the standard GnRH antagonist group) were evaluated retrospectively. Results: Mean length of stimulation (11.4 ± 2.7 vs. 10.0 ± 2.7 days; P < 0.05) and the total gonadotropin dose (3403 ± 1060 vs. 2984 ± 1112) used were significantly greater in the LPP group than in the standard GnRH antagonist protocol group. The mean number of oocytes retrieved (3.5 ± 2.6 vs. 3.7 ± 2.8), the number of mature oocytes (2.8 ± 2.2 vs. 2.6 ± 2.2), fertilization rates (65% vs. 62%), the number of embryos transferred (1.6 ± 0.6 vs. 1.7 ± 0.6), and implantation rates (16% vs. 13%) were similar. The cancellation rate did not significantly differ between the groups (9.4% vs. 13.2%). There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy (11.3% vs. 13.2%) or live birth rates per patient (3.8% vs. 9.4%) and clinical pregnancy (18.8% vs. 22.6%) or live birth rates per embryo transfer (6.3% vs. 12.9%) between the groups.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDEM, M., ERDEM, A., GÜLER, İ., MUTLU, İ., MUTLU, M. F. (2022). Comparison of the standard GnRH antagonist protocol and the luteal phase estradiol/ GnRH antagonist priming protocol in poor ovarian responders. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences, Cilt: 47 - Sayı: 2, 470–475. https://ajindex.com/articles/610382

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (11)

  1. Tarlatzis BC, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9: 61-76
  2. Hendriks DJ, te Velde ER, Looman CW, Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ. Expected poor ovarian response in predicting cumulative pregnancy rates: a powerful tool. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 727-736
  3. Ulug U, Ben-Shlomo I, Turan E, Erden HF, Akman MA, Bahceci M. Conception rates following assisted reproduction in poor responder patients: a retrospective study in 300 consecutive cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6: 439-443
  4. Fanchin R, Salomon L, Castelo-Branco A, Olivennes F, Frydman N, Frydman R. Luteal estradiol pre-treatment coordinates follicular growth during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2698-2703
  5. Fanchin R, Cunha-Filho JS, Schonauer LM, Kadoch IJ, CohenBacri P, Frydman R. Coordination of early antral follicles by luteal estradiol administration provides a basis for alternative controlled ovarian hyperstimulation regimens. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 316-321
  6. Elassar A, Engmann L, Nulsen J, Benadiva C. Letrozole and gonadotropins versus luteal estradiol and gonadotropinreleasing hormone antagonist protocol in women with a prior low response to ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2330- 2334
  7. Hill MJ, McWilliams GD, Miller KA, Scott RT, Jr, Frattarelli JL. A luteal estradiol protocol for anticipated poor-responder patients may improve delivery rates. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 739- 743
  8. Kyrou D, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Bontis J, Tarlatzis BC. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 749-766
  9. Loutradis D, Drakakis P, Milingos S, Stefanidis K, Michalas S. Alternative approaches in the management of poor response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003; 997: 112-119
  10. Dragisic KG, Davis OK, Fasouliotis SJ, Rosenwaks Z. Use of a luteal estradiol patch and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist suppression protocol before gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 1023-1026
  11. Shastri SM, Barbieri E, Kligman I, Schoyer KD, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z. Stimulation of the young poor responder: comparison of the luteal estradiol/gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist priming protocol versus oral