Cargando…

Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women

PURPOSE: To compare the embryo outcomes of in vitro fertilization/intra‐cytoplasmic sperm injection with a gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort stud...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tabata, Chisa, Fujiwara, Toshihiro, Sugawa, Miki, Noma, Momo, Onoue, Hiroki, Kusumi, Maki, Watanabe, Noriko, Kurosawa, Takako, Tsutsumi, Osamu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Japan 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300428/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25620883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12522-014-0186-0
_version_ 1782353521393270784
author Tabata, Chisa
Fujiwara, Toshihiro
Sugawa, Miki
Noma, Momo
Onoue, Hiroki
Kusumi, Maki
Watanabe, Noriko
Kurosawa, Takako
Tsutsumi, Osamu
author_facet Tabata, Chisa
Fujiwara, Toshihiro
Sugawa, Miki
Noma, Momo
Onoue, Hiroki
Kusumi, Maki
Watanabe, Noriko
Kurosawa, Takako
Tsutsumi, Osamu
author_sort Tabata, Chisa
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To compare the embryo outcomes of in vitro fertilization/intra‐cytoplasmic sperm injection with a gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in 465 patients. Stimulation was started by daily FSH injection, and either FSH was continued (FSH alone group) or hMG was administrated (FSH‐hMG group) after administration of a GnRH antagonist. Primary outcomes were the embryo profile (number of retrieved, mature, and fertilized eggs, and morphologically good embryos on day 3) and endocrine profile. Secondary outcomes were the doses and durations of gonadotropin. Data were stratified by the patients’ age into two groups: <35 years and ≥35 years. RESULTS: In patients aged <35 years, the number of retrieved oocytes in the FSH alone group was significantly increased than that in the FSH‐hMG group (13.7 vs 9.2, P = 0.04), while there was no difference at other age groups. The FSH‐hMG group required a significantly greater amount of gonadotropins at any age (all ages, P < 0.001; <35 years, P = 0.013; ≥35 years, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Exogenous FSH alone is probably sufficient for follicular development and hMG may not improve the embryo profile in a GnRH antagonist protocol across all age.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4300428
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Springer Japan
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43004282015-01-23 Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women Tabata, Chisa Fujiwara, Toshihiro Sugawa, Miki Noma, Momo Onoue, Hiroki Kusumi, Maki Watanabe, Noriko Kurosawa, Takako Tsutsumi, Osamu Reprod Med Biol Original Articles PURPOSE: To compare the embryo outcomes of in vitro fertilization/intra‐cytoplasmic sperm injection with a gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study in 465 patients. Stimulation was started by daily FSH injection, and either FSH was continued (FSH alone group) or hMG was administrated (FSH‐hMG group) after administration of a GnRH antagonist. Primary outcomes were the embryo profile (number of retrieved, mature, and fertilized eggs, and morphologically good embryos on day 3) and endocrine profile. Secondary outcomes were the doses and durations of gonadotropin. Data were stratified by the patients’ age into two groups: <35 years and ≥35 years. RESULTS: In patients aged <35 years, the number of retrieved oocytes in the FSH alone group was significantly increased than that in the FSH‐hMG group (13.7 vs 9.2, P = 0.04), while there was no difference at other age groups. The FSH‐hMG group required a significantly greater amount of gonadotropins at any age (all ages, P < 0.001; <35 years, P = 0.013; ≥35 years, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Exogenous FSH alone is probably sufficient for follicular development and hMG may not improve the embryo profile in a GnRH antagonist protocol across all age. Springer Japan 2014-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4300428/ /pubmed/25620883 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12522-014-0186-0 Text en © The Japan Society for Reproductive Medicine
spellingShingle Original Articles
Tabata, Chisa
Fujiwara, Toshihiro
Sugawa, Miki
Noma, Momo
Onoue, Hiroki
Kusumi, Maki
Watanabe, Noriko
Kurosawa, Takako
Tsutsumi, Osamu
Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women
title Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women
title_full Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women
title_fullStr Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women
title_short Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women
title_sort comparison of fsh and hmg on ovarian stimulation outcome with a gnrh antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300428/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25620883
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12522-014-0186-0
work_keys_str_mv AT tabatachisa comparisonoffshandhmgonovarianstimulationoutcomewithagnrhantagonistprotocolinyoungerandadvancedreproductiveagewomen
AT fujiwaratoshihiro comparisonoffshandhmgonovarianstimulationoutcomewithagnrhantagonistprotocolinyoungerandadvancedreproductiveagewomen
AT sugawamiki comparisonoffshandhmgonovarianstimulationoutcomewithagnrhantagonistprotocolinyoungerandadvancedreproductiveagewomen
AT nomamomo comparisonoffshandhmgonovarianstimulationoutcomewithagnrhantagonistprotocolinyoungerandadvancedreproductiveagewomen
AT onouehiroki comparisonoffshandhmgonovarianstimulationoutcomewithagnrhantagonistprotocolinyoungerandadvancedreproductiveagewomen
AT kusumimaki comparisonoffshandhmgonovarianstimulationoutcomewithagnrhantagonistprotocolinyoungerandadvancedreproductiveagewomen
AT watanabenoriko comparisonoffshandhmgonovarianstimulationoutcomewithagnrhantagonistprotocolinyoungerandadvancedreproductiveagewomen
AT kurosawatakako comparisonoffshandhmgonovarianstimulationoutcomewithagnrhantagonistprotocolinyoungerandadvancedreproductiveagewomen
AT tsutsumiosamu comparisonoffshandhmgonovarianstimulationoutcomewithagnrhantagonistprotocolinyoungerandadvancedreproductiveagewomen