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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |