Cargando…

Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts

STUDY QUESTION: Does the type of luteal support affect pregnancy outcomes in recipients of vitrified blastocysts? SUMMARY ANSWER: Luteal support with vaginal progesterone gel or i.m. progesterone (IMP) results in comparable implantation and pregnancy rates in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastoc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shapiro, Daniel B., Pappadakis, Jennifer A., Ellsworth, Nancy M., Hait, Howard I., Nagy, Zsolt Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093993/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24847018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu121
_version_ 1782325788031320064
author Shapiro, Daniel B.
Pappadakis, Jennifer A.
Ellsworth, Nancy M.
Hait, Howard I.
Nagy, Zsolt Peter
author_facet Shapiro, Daniel B.
Pappadakis, Jennifer A.
Ellsworth, Nancy M.
Hait, Howard I.
Nagy, Zsolt Peter
author_sort Shapiro, Daniel B.
collection PubMed
description STUDY QUESTION: Does the type of luteal support affect pregnancy outcomes in recipients of vitrified blastocysts? SUMMARY ANSWER: Luteal support with vaginal progesterone gel or i.m. progesterone (IMP) results in comparable implantation and pregnancy rates in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In fresh IVF cycles, both IMP and vaginal progesterone have become the standard of care for luteal phase support. Due to conflicting data in replacement cycles, IMP is often considered to be the standard of care. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective analysis of 920 frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles between 1 January 2010 and 1 September 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients from a large, private practice undergoing autologous and donor FET using IMP or vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support were included in the analysis. IMP was used for luteal support in 682 FET cycles and vaginal progesterone gel was used in 238 FET cycles. Standard clinical outcomes of positive serum hCG levels, implantation, clinical pregnancy, spontaneous abortion and live birth were reported. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The IMP and vaginal progesterone gel groups had similar patient demographics for all characteristics assessed. Implantation rates (46.4 versus 45.6%, P = 0.81), clinical pregnancy rates (61.7 versus 60.5%, P = 0.80) and live birth rates (49.1 versus 48.9%, P > 0.99) were not significantly different between IMP and vaginal progesterone gel, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is limited by its retrospective design and by its lack of randomization to the type of luteal support. In addition, because no a priori expected rates of success could be provided for this retrospective investigation, it was not possible to estimate statistical power associated with the various outcomes presented. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: With the recent trends toward single embryo transfer (SET) and use of vitrified blastocysts in FET cycles, our data with ∼40% of cycles being SET and use of exclusively vitrified blastocysts are more relevant to current practices than previous studies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Support for data collection and analysis was provided by Actavis, Inc. D.S. has received honoraria for lectures and participation in Scientific Advisory Boards for Actavis, Inc. J.P. is an employee of Actavis, Inc. N.E. has received payment from Actavis, Inc., for her time for data collection. H.H. has received payment from Actavis, Inc., for statistical analyses. Z.P.N. has nothing to disclose.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4093993
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40939932014-07-11 Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts Shapiro, Daniel B. Pappadakis, Jennifer A. Ellsworth, Nancy M. Hait, Howard I. Nagy, Zsolt Peter Hum Reprod Original Articles STUDY QUESTION: Does the type of luteal support affect pregnancy outcomes in recipients of vitrified blastocysts? SUMMARY ANSWER: Luteal support with vaginal progesterone gel or i.m. progesterone (IMP) results in comparable implantation and pregnancy rates in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In fresh IVF cycles, both IMP and vaginal progesterone have become the standard of care for luteal phase support. Due to conflicting data in replacement cycles, IMP is often considered to be the standard of care. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective analysis of 920 frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles between 1 January 2010 and 1 September 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients from a large, private practice undergoing autologous and donor FET using IMP or vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support were included in the analysis. IMP was used for luteal support in 682 FET cycles and vaginal progesterone gel was used in 238 FET cycles. Standard clinical outcomes of positive serum hCG levels, implantation, clinical pregnancy, spontaneous abortion and live birth were reported. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The IMP and vaginal progesterone gel groups had similar patient demographics for all characteristics assessed. Implantation rates (46.4 versus 45.6%, P = 0.81), clinical pregnancy rates (61.7 versus 60.5%, P = 0.80) and live birth rates (49.1 versus 48.9%, P > 0.99) were not significantly different between IMP and vaginal progesterone gel, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is limited by its retrospective design and by its lack of randomization to the type of luteal support. In addition, because no a priori expected rates of success could be provided for this retrospective investigation, it was not possible to estimate statistical power associated with the various outcomes presented. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: With the recent trends toward single embryo transfer (SET) and use of vitrified blastocysts in FET cycles, our data with ∼40% of cycles being SET and use of exclusively vitrified blastocysts are more relevant to current practices than previous studies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Support for data collection and analysis was provided by Actavis, Inc. D.S. has received honoraria for lectures and participation in Scientific Advisory Boards for Actavis, Inc. J.P. is an employee of Actavis, Inc. N.E. has received payment from Actavis, Inc., for her time for data collection. H.H. has received payment from Actavis, Inc., for statistical analyses. Z.P.N. has nothing to disclose. Oxford University Press 2014-08 2014-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4093993/ /pubmed/24847018 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu121 Text en © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Articles
Shapiro, Daniel B.
Pappadakis, Jennifer A.
Ellsworth, Nancy M.
Hait, Howard I.
Nagy, Zsolt Peter
Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts
title Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts
title_full Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts
title_fullStr Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts
title_full_unstemmed Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts
title_short Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts
title_sort progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in ivf patients receiving vitrified blastocysts
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093993/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24847018
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu121
work_keys_str_mv AT shapirodanielb progesteronereplacementwithvaginalgelversusiminjectioncycleandpregnancyoutcomesinivfpatientsreceivingvitrifiedblastocysts
AT pappadakisjennifera progesteronereplacementwithvaginalgelversusiminjectioncycleandpregnancyoutcomesinivfpatientsreceivingvitrifiedblastocysts
AT ellsworthnancym progesteronereplacementwithvaginalgelversusiminjectioncycleandpregnancyoutcomesinivfpatientsreceivingvitrifiedblastocysts
AT haithowardi progesteronereplacementwithvaginalgelversusiminjectioncycleandpregnancyoutcomesinivfpatientsreceivingvitrifiedblastocysts
AT nagyzsoltpeter progesteronereplacementwithvaginalgelversusiminjectioncycleandpregnancyoutcomesinivfpatientsreceivingvitrifiedblastocysts