A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol.
Abortion, Spontaneous
/ epidemiology
Adult
Embryo Transfer
/ methods
Estradiol
/ therapeutic use
Female
Fertility Agents, Female
/ therapeutic use
Fertilization in Vitro
/ methods
Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone
/ antagonists & inhibitors
Hormone Antagonists
/ therapeutic use
Humans
Infertility
/ epidemiology
Luteal Phase
/ drug effects
Male
Ovulation Induction
/ methods
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Outcome
/ epidemiology
Pregnancy Rate
Retrospective Studies
Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
Treatment Outcome
estradiol
estrogen
luteal phase support
pregnancy rate
progesterone
Journal
JBRA assisted reproduction
ISSN: 1518-0557
Titre abrégé: JBRA Assist Reprod
Pays: Brazil
ID NLM: 101684552
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 08 2019
22 08 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
16
3
2019
medline:
27
6
2020
entrez:
16
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of three different luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on the pregnancy rates and luteal phase hormone profiles of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. A secondary objective was to evaluate which ovarian reserve markers correlated with pregnancy rates. This retrospective observational study was carried out at a private tertiary reproductive medicine teaching and research center. The study enrolled 104 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on an antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). The women were divided into three groups based on the route of administration of estrogen (E2) for luteal phase support: oral (Primogyna); transdermal patches (Estradott); or transdermal gel (Oestrogel Pump). The administration of estrogen provided the equivalent to 4 mg of estradiol daily. All women received 600mg of vaginal progesterone (P) per day (Utrogestan) for luteal phase support. Blood samples were drawn on the day of hCG administration and on the day of beta hCG testing to measure E2 and P levels. Clinical pregnancy rate (PR) was the main endpoint. The patients included in the three groups were comparable. No significant differences were found in implantation rates, clinical PR, miscarriage rates, multiple-pregnancy rates, E2 or P levels on the day of beta hCG measurement. Concerning ovarian reserve markers, significant correlations between testing positive for clinical pregnancy and AMH (r = 0.66, p<0.0001) and E2 levels on beta hCG measurement day (r = 0.77; p<.0001) were observed. No significant differences were seen in the pregnancy rates of patients submitted to IVF-ET cycles with GnRH antagonists given oral, transdermal patches, or transdermal gel E2 during the luteal phase. A correlation was found between clinical pregnancy rate and AMH and E2 levels on beta hCG testing day.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30875186
doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20190012
pmc: PMC6724398
doi:
Substances chimiques
Fertility Agents, Female
0
Hormone Antagonists
0
Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone
33515-09-2
Estradiol
4TI98Z838E
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
239-245Références
Int J Fertil Steril. 2017 Apr-Jun;11(1):40-46
pubmed: 28367304
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993 Jun;76(6):1470-6
pubmed: 8501152
Hum Reprod. 1997 Dec;12(12):2607-13
pubmed: 9455822
Fertil Steril. 2000 Apr;73(4):761-6
pubmed: 10731538
Fertil Steril. 1982 Mar;37(3):348-54
pubmed: 7060785
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):428-36
pubmed: 19342034
Fertil Steril. 1989 Sep;52(3):441-5
pubmed: 2776898
Med J Malaysia. 2003 Jun;58(2):187-95
pubmed: 14569738
Hum Reprod. 2002 Feb;17(2):357-61
pubmed: 11821278
Fertil Steril. 2010 May 1;93(7):2182-8
pubmed: 19243745
Fertil Steril. 2007 Mar;87(3):504-8
pubmed: 17140572
Fertil Steril. 2008 Apr;89(4):749-58
pubmed: 18406833
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017 Sep 1;21(3):247-250
pubmed: 28837035
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1987 Nov;65(5):1006-13
pubmed: 3667871
Hum Reprod. 2006 Oct;21(10):2628-32
pubmed: 16857887
Fertil Steril. 1994 Jul;62(1):121-5
pubmed: 8005275
Hum Reprod. 1988 Jul;3(5):585-90
pubmed: 3139698
Fertil Steril. 2005 May;83(5):1372-6
pubmed: 15866571
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004;58(3):140-4
pubmed: 15205566
Fertil Steril. 2009 Aug;92(2):486-93
pubmed: 19464001
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2016 Jun;19(2):142-9
pubmed: 27434094
Lancet. 1984 Nov 17;2(8412):1151
pubmed: 6150201
Hum Reprod. 1999 Nov;14(11):2777-82
pubmed: 10548621
Hum Reprod. 1993 Jan;8(1):40-5
pubmed: 8458924
Fertil Steril. 1994 Jul;62(1):103-7
pubmed: 8005273