Cargando…

A prospective randomised study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF

Objective: To compare two short protocols for ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles using an antagonist and an agonist short protocol. The outcomes studied were dosis rec FSH needed, days of stimulation, number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy outcome. Methods: A prospective randomised study design. I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gordts, S., Van Turnhout, C., Campo, R., Puttemans, P., Valkenburg, M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Universa Press 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24753894
_version_ 1782479691487117312
author Gordts, S.
Van Turnhout, C.
Campo, R.
Puttemans, P.
Valkenburg, M.
Gordts, S.
author_facet Gordts, S.
Van Turnhout, C.
Campo, R.
Puttemans, P.
Valkenburg, M.
Gordts, S.
author_sort Gordts, S.
collection PubMed
description Objective: To compare two short protocols for ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles using an antagonist and an agonist short protocol. The outcomes studied were dosis rec FSH needed, days of stimulation, number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy outcome. Methods: A prospective randomised study design. Inclusion criteria: first or second IVF attempt in women younger than 40 years. In the agonist protocol (Suprefact®) nasal spray was used. In the antagonist protocol (Orgalutran)® was started as soon as at least 1 follicle of 12 mm was visualized on ultrasound. Results: 160 cycles were included in the study: 80 in the antagonist group and 80 in the agonist group. A higher dosis of recombinant FSH (rec FSH) was used for stimulation in the antagonist group (1897 IU versus 1655 IU). Pregnancy rate per ET in the antagonist group was 37% with an ongoing pregnancy rate of 21%/ET and an implantation rate of 22%; versus respectively 39%, 20% and 22% in the agonist treated group. Live birth rate per started cylce was 19% in the antagonist group versus 20% in the agonist group. Conclusion: This study shows that implantation rates, ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates are equal in both groups. An identical number of oocytes was retrieved, with no difference in duration of the stimulation although a higher dosis of rec FSH was needed in the antagonist group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3987498
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Universa Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39874982014-04-21 A prospective randomised study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF Gordts, S. Van Turnhout, C. Campo, R. Puttemans, P. Valkenburg, M. Gordts, S. Facts Views Vis Obgyn Original Paper Objective: To compare two short protocols for ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles using an antagonist and an agonist short protocol. The outcomes studied were dosis rec FSH needed, days of stimulation, number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy outcome. Methods: A prospective randomised study design. Inclusion criteria: first or second IVF attempt in women younger than 40 years. In the agonist protocol (Suprefact®) nasal spray was used. In the antagonist protocol (Orgalutran)® was started as soon as at least 1 follicle of 12 mm was visualized on ultrasound. Results: 160 cycles were included in the study: 80 in the antagonist group and 80 in the agonist group. A higher dosis of recombinant FSH (rec FSH) was used for stimulation in the antagonist group (1897 IU versus 1655 IU). Pregnancy rate per ET in the antagonist group was 37% with an ongoing pregnancy rate of 21%/ET and an implantation rate of 22%; versus respectively 39%, 20% and 22% in the agonist treated group. Live birth rate per started cylce was 19% in the antagonist group versus 20% in the agonist group. Conclusion: This study shows that implantation rates, ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates are equal in both groups. An identical number of oocytes was retrieved, with no difference in duration of the stimulation although a higher dosis of rec FSH was needed in the antagonist group. Universa Press 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3987498/ /pubmed/24753894 Text en Copyright: © 2012 Facts, Views & Vision http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Gordts, S.
Van Turnhout, C.
Campo, R.
Puttemans, P.
Valkenburg, M.
Gordts, S.
A prospective randomised study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF
title A prospective randomised study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF
title_full A prospective randomised study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF
title_fullStr A prospective randomised study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF
title_full_unstemmed A prospective randomised study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF
title_short A prospective randomised study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF
title_sort prospective randomised study comparing a gnrh-antagonist versus a gnrh-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for ivf
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24753894
work_keys_str_mv AT gordtss aprospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT vanturnhoutc aprospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT campor aprospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT puttemansp aprospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT valkenburgm aprospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT gordtss aprospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT gordtss prospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT vanturnhoutc prospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT campor prospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT puttemansp prospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT valkenburgm prospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf
AT gordtss prospectiverandomisedstudycomparingagnrhantagonistversusagnrhagonistshortprotocolforovarianstimulationinpatientsreferredforivf