Do we need to measure progesterone in oocyte donation cycles? A retrospective analysis evaluating cumulative live birth rates and embryo quality.


Journal

Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 01 2020
Historique:
received: 19 05 2019
revised: 19 09 2019
pubmed: 19 1 2020
medline: 28 4 2021
entrez: 19 1 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Does late follicular-phase elevated serum progesterone (LFEP) during ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation have an impact on embryo quality (EQ) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)? LFEP does not have an influence on EQ nor CLBR in oocyte donation cycles. Ovarian stimulation promotes the production of progesterone (P) which, when elevated during the follicular phase, has been demonstrated to have a deleterious effect in autologous fresh IVF outcomes. While there is robust evidence that this elevation results in impaired endometrial receptivity, the impact on EQ remains a matter of debate. The oocyte donation model is an excellent tool to assess the effects of LFEP on EQ from those on endometrium receptivity separately. Previous studies in oocyte donation cycles investigating the influence of elevated P on pregnancy outcomes in oocyte recipients showed conflicting results. This is a retrospective analysis including all GnRH antagonist down-regulated cycles for fresh oocyte donation taking place in a tertiary referral university hospital between 2010 and 2017. A total of 397 fresh donor-recipient cycles were included. Each donor was included only once in the analysis and could be associated to a single recipient. The sample was stratified according to serum P levels of ≤1.5 and >1.5 ng/mL on the day of ovulation triggering. The primary endpoint of the study was the top-quality embryo rate on Day 3, and the secondary outcome measure was CLBR defined as a live-born delivery beyond 24 weeks. Three hundred ninety-seven fresh oocyte donation cycles were included in the analysis, of which 314 (79%) had a serum P ≤ 1.5 ng/mL and 83 (20.9%) had a serum P > 1.5 ng/mL. The average age of the oocyte donors was 31.4 ± 4.7 and 29.9 ± 4.5 years, respectively, for normal and elevated P (P = 0.017). The mean number of oocytes retrieved was significantly higher in the elevated P group with 16.6 ± 10.6 vs 11.5 ± 6.9 in the P ≤ 1.5 group (P < 0.001).In parallel, the total number of embryos on Day 3, as well as the number of good-quality embryos at this stage, was significantly higher in the elevated P group (6.6 ± 5.6 vs 4.15 ± 3.5 and 8.7 ± 6.3 vs 6.1 ± 4.4; respectively, P < 0.001). However, maturation and fertilization rates did not vary significantly between the two study groups and neither did the top- and good-quality embryo rate and the embryo utilization rate, all evaluated on Day 3 (P = 0.384, P = 0.405 and P = 0.645, respectively). A multivariable regression analysis accounting for P groups, age of the donor, number of retrieved oocytes and top-quality embryo rate as potential confounders showed that LFEP negatively influenced neither the top-quality embryo rate nor the CLBR. This is an observational study based on a retrospective data analysis. Better extrapolation of the results could be validated by performing a prospective trial. Furthermore, this study was focused on oocyte donation cycles and hence the results cannot be generalized to the entire infertile population. This is the first study providing evidence that LFEP does not influence CLBR and is adding strong evidence to the existing literature that LFEP does not harm EQ in oocyte donation programs. Not applicable.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31953546
pii: 5709210
doi: 10.1093/humrep/dez238
doi:

Substances chimiques

Progesterone 4G7DS2Q64Y

Types de publication

Journal Article Observational Study

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

167-174

Commentaires et corrections

Type : ErratumIn

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

A Racca (A)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.

N De Munck (N)

IVI-RMA Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

S Santos-Ribeiro (S)

Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidade (IVI-RMA, Lisboa 1800-282, Portugal.

P Drakopoulos (P)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.

J Errazuriz (J)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.
Departamento de Ginecología y Obstetricia, Facultad de Medicina, Clínica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile.

A Galvao (A)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Centro Materno Infantil do Norte, Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Porto, Portugal.

B Popovic-Todorovic (B)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.

S Mackens (S)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.

M De Vos (M)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.

G Verheyen (G)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.

H Tournaye (H)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.

C Blockeel (C)

Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Laarbeeklaan 101, Brussels 1090, Belgium.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Zagreb-School of Medicine, Šalata 3, Zagreb 10000, Croatia.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH