Author:
Liu Ahui,Li Jie,Shen Haofei,Zhang Lili,Li Qiuyuan,Zhang Xuehong
Abstract
Abstract
Objective
To explore the efficacy of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) combined with clomiphene citrate (CC) versus PPOS protocol used alone on cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes for women with the poor ovarian response (POR).
Methods
We performed a retrospective cohort study and a total of 578 POR patients who underwent IVF/ICSI cycles were collected and divided into Group A (HMG 300 IU/d + MPA 10 mg/d) and Group B (HMG 300 IU/d + MPA 10 mg/d + CC 50 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the number of oocytes retrieved, other outcome measures were cycle characteristics and clinical pregnancy rate.
Results
The baseline information between the two groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Compared with Group A, Group B had a lower total dose of human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) (2998.63 ± 1051.09 vs. 3399.18 ± 820.75, P < 0.001) and the duration of stimulation (10.21 ± 3.56 vs. 11.27 ± 2.56, P < 0.001). Serum luteinizing hormone level was higher in Group B on human chorionic gonadotrophin injection day (P < 0.001). The number of oocyte for retrieval, maturation, and fertilization were significantly lower in Group B than that in Group A (P < 0.001). However, the oocyte retrieval rate, maturation rate, fertilization rate, and viable embryo rate showed no statistical difference in the two groups (P > 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.286; 95% CI 0.671–2.470) and live birth rate (OR 1.390; 95% CI 0.478–3.990) were comparable between the two groups.
Conclusions
PPOS protocol combined with CC reduces the total dose of HMG and the duration of stimulation, and can also achieve similar oocyte yields and clinical pregnancy rate compared with the PPOS protocol used alone in poor ovarian responders.
Funder
The Innovation Fund Project for Colleges and Universities of Gansu Province
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Obstetrics and Gynecology,Reproductive Medicine,General Medicine
Reference32 articles.
1. Zhang Y, Zhang C, Shu J, et al. Adjuvant treatment strategies in ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26(2):247–63.
2. Siristatidis C, Salamalekis G, Dafopoulos K, et al. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI. In vivo (Athens, Greece). 2017;31(2):231–7.
3. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of “poor response” to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2011;26(7):1616–24.
4. Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1452–3.
5. Song D, Shi Y, Zhong Y, et al. Efficiency of mild ovarian stimulation with clomiphene on poor ovarian responders during IVF\ICSI procedures: a meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;204:36–43.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献