Effects of changing the control ovarian stimulation protocol in patients without a transplantable embryo in the previous in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle

Author:

Yi Shan-Jia12,Yang Yi-Hua1,Bi Yin1,Zeng Zhong-Hong1,Wang Xi1,Li Mu-Jun1,Ma Wen-Hong13

Affiliation:

1. Guangxi Reproductive Medical Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning 530021, China

2. Reproductive Medicine Center, Affiliated Hospital of Guilin Medical University, Guilin 541001, China

3. Reproductive Medicine Center, Liuzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital, Liuzhou 545001, China.

Abstract

Objective: Some patients fail to obtain an embryo for transplantation during previous in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, and require multiple reproductive treatments. This study aimed to evaluate whether changing the control ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol during the subsequent stimulation cycle could improve laboratory and clinical outcomes in these patients. Methods: Patients without a transplantable embryo (TE) in the previous IVF/ICSI cycles were recruited during their second cycles. They were classified into two groups according to their first cycle protocol: Group A, patients treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a), and Group B, patients treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant). The study group included patients whose stimulation protocols were changed, whereas the control group consisted of patients who used the same stimulation protocol in the second cycle. We then compared the numbers of oocytes collected (OC) and TE, the incidence of non-TE, the pregnancy rate (PR), and the live birth rate (LBR). Results: In Group A, the numbers of OC and TE were significantly lower (6.0 ± 4.7 vs. 9.4 ± 6.4, 2.3 ± 2.2 vs. 4.5 ± 3.8, P <0.05) in the study group compared with those in the control group. In Group B, the numbers of OC and TE were higher (7.0 ± 5.5 vs. 4.0 ± 4.3, 3.5 ± 3.4 vs. 1.8 ± 2.1, P <0.05) in the study group. There was a significant increase in the incidence of non-TE (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.12, 95% CI: 1.04–4.69) of the study group in Group A but not in Group B. No significant differences in the PR or LBR were found between the study and control groups in either Group A or B. Conclusion: Changing the COS protocol from GnRH-ant to GnRH-a or continuing the GnRH-a protocol can improve laboratory outcomes in patients with no TE in the previous IVF/ICSI cycle.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology,Reproductive Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3