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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scheffer, Juliano Brum, Scheffer, Bruno Brum, de Carvalho, Rafaela Friche, Aguiar, Ana Paula, Lozano, Daniel H. Mendez, Labrosse, Julie, Grynberg, Michael
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