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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pilehvari, Shamim, ShahrokhTehraninejad, Ensieh, Hosseinrashidi, Batool, Keikhah, Fatemeh, Haghollahi, Fedyeh, Aziminekoo, Elham
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