Cargando…
Efficacy of Intrauterine Injection of Granulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) on Treatment of Unexplained Recurrent Miscarriage: A Pilot RCT Study
BACKGROUND: Endometrium undergoes several changes in structure and cellular composition during pregnancy. Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor (GCS-F) is an important cytokine with critical role in embryo implantation and pregnancy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of intraut...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Avicenna Research Institute
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5691254/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29201668 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Endometrium undergoes several changes in structure and cellular composition during pregnancy. Granulocyte Colony-stimulating Factor (GCS-F) is an important cytokine with critical role in embryo implantation and pregnancy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of intrauterine injection of G-CSF in patients who suffer from unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). METHODS: In the present randomized clinical trial, a total of 68 patients were randomly allocated into two study groups including intrauterine G-CSF (n=23, 300 μg) injection and control group (n=27, no G-CSF injection). Eighteen out of 68 patients were excluded from the final analysis due to different reasons. All patients were in Ovulation Induction (I/O) cycle. In G-CSF group, intrauterine injection of G-CSF was done twice in the cycle. All enrolled patients were under 40 years old and had at least two unexplained pregnancy losses. Pregnancy was evaluated by titer of βhCG, presence of gestational sac (implantation) and fetal heart rate (clinical pregnancy) was assessed by vaginal ultrasonography. Student’s T test and Mann-Whitney U were used for analysis. The p≤0.05 was determined as statistically significant. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between the two study groups when the rates of chemical pregnancy (26.1% vs. 29.6%, p=0.781), implantation (26.1% vs. 22.2%, p=0.750), clinical pregnancy (17.4% vs. 11.1%, p=0.689) and abortion (33% vs. 37.5%, p=0.296) were compared. CONCLUSION: In our study, no significant difference was observed between the two study groups when the rates of chemical pregnancy, implantation, clinical pregnancy and abortion were compared. |
---|