Cargando…
Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders
Objective: To compare the pregnancy outcomes achieved by in vitro fertilization (IVF) between minimal stimulation and conventional antagonist protocols in poor ovarian responders (PORs). Materials and methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 77 PORs undergoing IVF were selected and divided into...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Tehran University of Medical Sciences
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4930452/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385972 |
_version_ | 1782440742255329280 |
---|---|
author | Pilehvari, Shamim ShahrokhTehraninejad, Ensieh Hosseinrashidi, Batool Keikhah, Fatemeh Haghollahi, Fedyeh Aziminekoo, Elham |
author_facet | Pilehvari, Shamim ShahrokhTehraninejad, Ensieh Hosseinrashidi, Batool Keikhah, Fatemeh Haghollahi, Fedyeh Aziminekoo, Elham |
author_sort | Pilehvari, Shamim |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective: To compare the pregnancy outcomes achieved by in vitro fertilization (IVF) between minimal stimulation and conventional antagonist protocols in poor ovarian responders (PORs). Materials and methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 77 PORs undergoing IVF were selected and divided into two groups. First group was the minimal stimulation group (n = 42) receiving 100 mg/day clomiphene citrate on day 2of the cycle for 5 day that was followed by150IU/day human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) on day 5 of the cycle. Second group was the conventional group (n = 35) receiving at least 300 IU/daygonadotropin on day 2 of the cycle. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol was applied for both groups according to flexible protocol. Number of retrieved oocytes and chemical pregnancy rate were the main outcomes. Results: There was no difference in number ofretrieved oocyte and pregnancy rate (2.79 ± 1.96 vs. 2.20 ± 1.71 and 5.6% vs. 4.1%; p > 0.05) between both groups. The gonadotropin dose used in the minimal stimulation group was lower than conventional group (1046 ± 596 vs. 2806 ± 583). Conclusion: Minimal stimulation protocol with lower gonadotropin used is likely to be considered as a patient- friendly and cost-effective substitute for PORs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4930452 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Tehran University of Medical Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49304522016-07-06 Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders Pilehvari, Shamim ShahrokhTehraninejad, Ensieh Hosseinrashidi, Batool Keikhah, Fatemeh Haghollahi, Fedyeh Aziminekoo, Elham J Family Reprod Health Original Article Objective: To compare the pregnancy outcomes achieved by in vitro fertilization (IVF) between minimal stimulation and conventional antagonist protocols in poor ovarian responders (PORs). Materials and methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 77 PORs undergoing IVF were selected and divided into two groups. First group was the minimal stimulation group (n = 42) receiving 100 mg/day clomiphene citrate on day 2of the cycle for 5 day that was followed by150IU/day human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) on day 5 of the cycle. Second group was the conventional group (n = 35) receiving at least 300 IU/daygonadotropin on day 2 of the cycle. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol was applied for both groups according to flexible protocol. Number of retrieved oocytes and chemical pregnancy rate were the main outcomes. Results: There was no difference in number ofretrieved oocyte and pregnancy rate (2.79 ± 1.96 vs. 2.20 ± 1.71 and 5.6% vs. 4.1%; p > 0.05) between both groups. The gonadotropin dose used in the minimal stimulation group was lower than conventional group (1046 ± 596 vs. 2806 ± 583). Conclusion: Minimal stimulation protocol with lower gonadotropin used is likely to be considered as a patient- friendly and cost-effective substitute for PORs. Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2016-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4930452/ /pubmed/27385972 Text en Copyright © Vali-e-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Pilehvari, Shamim ShahrokhTehraninejad, Ensieh Hosseinrashidi, Batool Keikhah, Fatemeh Haghollahi, Fedyeh Aziminekoo, Elham Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders |
title | Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders |
title_full | Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders |
title_fullStr | Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders |
title_short | Comparison Pregnancy Outcomes Between Minimal Stimulation Protocol and Conventional GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders |
title_sort | comparison pregnancy outcomes between minimal stimulation protocol and conventional gnrh antagonist protocols in poor ovarian responders |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4930452/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385972 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pilehvarishamim comparisonpregnancyoutcomesbetweenminimalstimulationprotocolandconventionalgnrhantagonistprotocolsinpoorovarianresponders AT shahrokhtehraninejadensieh comparisonpregnancyoutcomesbetweenminimalstimulationprotocolandconventionalgnrhantagonistprotocolsinpoorovarianresponders AT hosseinrashidibatool comparisonpregnancyoutcomesbetweenminimalstimulationprotocolandconventionalgnrhantagonistprotocolsinpoorovarianresponders AT keikhahfatemeh comparisonpregnancyoutcomesbetweenminimalstimulationprotocolandconventionalgnrhantagonistprotocolsinpoorovarianresponders AT haghollahifedyeh comparisonpregnancyoutcomesbetweenminimalstimulationprotocolandconventionalgnrhantagonistprotocolsinpoorovarianresponders AT aziminekooelham comparisonpregnancyoutcomesbetweenminimalstimulationprotocolandconventionalgnrhantagonistprotocolsinpoorovarianresponders |