Cargando…
A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of three different luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on the pregnancy rates and luteal phase hormone profiles of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. A secondary objective was to evaluate which ovar...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6724398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30875186 http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20190012 |
_version_ | 1783448985234571264 |
---|---|
author | Scheffer, Juliano Brum Scheffer, Bruno Brum de Carvalho, Rafaela Friche Aguiar, Ana Paula Lozano, Daniel H. Mendez Labrosse, Julie Grynberg, Michael |
author_facet | Scheffer, Juliano Brum Scheffer, Bruno Brum de Carvalho, Rafaela Friche Aguiar, Ana Paula Lozano, Daniel H. Mendez Labrosse, Julie Grynberg, Michael |
author_sort | Scheffer, Juliano Brum |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of three different luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on the pregnancy rates and luteal phase hormone profiles of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. A secondary objective was to evaluate which ovarian reserve markers correlated with pregnancy rates. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was carried out at a private tertiary reproductive medicine teaching and research center. The study enrolled 104 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on an antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). The women were divided into three groups based on the route of administration of estrogen (E2) for luteal phase support: oral (Primogyna); transdermal patches (Estradott); or transdermal gel (Oestrogel Pump). The administration of estrogen provided the equivalent to 4 mg of estradiol daily. All women received 600mg of vaginal progesterone (P) per day (Utrogestan) for luteal phase support. Blood samples were drawn on the day of hCG administration and on the day of beta hCG testing to measure E2 and P levels. Clinical pregnancy rate (PR) was the main endpoint. RESULTS: The patients included in the three groups were comparable. No significant differences were found in implantation rates, clinical PR, miscarriage rates, multiple-pregnancy rates, E2 or P levels on the day of beta hCG measurement. Concerning ovarian reserve markers, significant correlations between testing positive for clinical pregnancy and AMH (r = 0.66, p<0.0001) and E2 levels on beta hCG measurement day (r = 0.77; p<.0001) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were seen in the pregnancy rates of patients submitted to IVF-ET cycles with GnRH antagonists given oral, transdermal patches, or transdermal gel E2 during the luteal phase. A correlation was found between clinical pregnancy rate and AMH and E2 levels on beta hCG testing day. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6724398 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67243982019-09-23 A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol Scheffer, Juliano Brum Scheffer, Bruno Brum de Carvalho, Rafaela Friche Aguiar, Ana Paula Lozano, Daniel H. Mendez Labrosse, Julie Grynberg, Michael JBRA Assist Reprod Original Article OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of three different luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on the pregnancy rates and luteal phase hormone profiles of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. A secondary objective was to evaluate which ovarian reserve markers correlated with pregnancy rates. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was carried out at a private tertiary reproductive medicine teaching and research center. The study enrolled 104 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) on an antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). The women were divided into three groups based on the route of administration of estrogen (E2) for luteal phase support: oral (Primogyna); transdermal patches (Estradott); or transdermal gel (Oestrogel Pump). The administration of estrogen provided the equivalent to 4 mg of estradiol daily. All women received 600mg of vaginal progesterone (P) per day (Utrogestan) for luteal phase support. Blood samples were drawn on the day of hCG administration and on the day of beta hCG testing to measure E2 and P levels. Clinical pregnancy rate (PR) was the main endpoint. RESULTS: The patients included in the three groups were comparable. No significant differences were found in implantation rates, clinical PR, miscarriage rates, multiple-pregnancy rates, E2 or P levels on the day of beta hCG measurement. Concerning ovarian reserve markers, significant correlations between testing positive for clinical pregnancy and AMH (r = 0.66, p<0.0001) and E2 levels on beta hCG measurement day (r = 0.77; p<.0001) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were seen in the pregnancy rates of patients submitted to IVF-ET cycles with GnRH antagonists given oral, transdermal patches, or transdermal gel E2 during the luteal phase. A correlation was found between clinical pregnancy rate and AMH and E2 levels on beta hCG testing day. Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6724398/ /pubmed/30875186 http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20190012 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Scheffer, Juliano Brum Scheffer, Bruno Brum de Carvalho, Rafaela Friche Aguiar, Ana Paula Lozano, Daniel H. Mendez Labrosse, Julie Grynberg, Michael A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol |
title | A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols
with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer
outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol |
title_full | A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols
with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer
outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol |
title_fullStr | A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols
with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer
outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols
with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer
outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol |
title_short | A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols
with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer
outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol |
title_sort | comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols
with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer
outcomes in patients on a gnrh antagonist protocol |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6724398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30875186 http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20190012 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schefferjulianobrum acomparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT schefferbrunobrum acomparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT decarvalhorafaelafriche acomparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT aguiaranapaula acomparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT lozanodanielhmendez acomparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT labrossejulie acomparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT grynbergmichael acomparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT schefferjulianobrum comparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT schefferbrunobrum comparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT decarvalhorafaelafriche comparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT aguiaranapaula comparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT lozanodanielhmendez comparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT labrossejulie comparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol AT grynbergmichael comparisonoftheeffectsofthreelutealphasesupportprotocolswithestrogenoninvitrofertilizationembryotransferoutcomesinpatientsonagnrhantagonistprotocol |