Cargando…

Comparison Between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE: To investigate whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) can be an alternative as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) long protocol for infertile women with normal ovarian reserve during IVF/ICSI. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 257 p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xi, Qianwen, Tao, Yu, Qiu, Meiting, Wang, Yun, Kuang, Yanping
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7060798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32184672
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S226414
_version_ 1783504296549023744
author Xi, Qianwen
Tao, Yu
Qiu, Meiting
Wang, Yun
Kuang, Yanping
author_facet Xi, Qianwen
Tao, Yu
Qiu, Meiting
Wang, Yun
Kuang, Yanping
author_sort Xi, Qianwen
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To investigate whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) can be an alternative as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) long protocol for infertile women with normal ovarian reserve during IVF/ICSI. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 257 patients was conducted between 1 August 2017 to 1 January 2018. Computerized randomization was performed to assign participants into two treatment groups at a 1:1 ratio: PPOS (130 patients) or GnRHa long protocol (127 patients) followed by their first IVF/ICSI with fresh/frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. Patients with normal ovarian reserve undergoing their first IVF/ICSI procedure were included. The embryological and clinical outcomes were measured. Only the first embryo transfer cycle was followed-up. RESULTS: Basic characteristics such as infertility duration, age, and body mass index (BMI) were comparable in both groups. No significant difference was found in the number (mean ± SD) oocytes retrieved [11.8 ± 6.5 for PPOS vs 11.3 ± 5.6 for GnRHa long protocol] or viable embryos [4.5 ± 3.0 for PPOS vs 4.2 ± 2.9 for GnRHa long protocol] between the groups. No patient from either group experienced a premature LH surge during the whole process of ovarian stimulation. Besides, there was no moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome during the ovarian stimulation in PPOS group while three patients suffered it in the GnRHa long protocol group. There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate of the first embryos transfer cycle between the two groups. CONCLUSION: PPOS in combination with embryo cryopreservation as an ovarian stimulation regimen was as effective as GnRHa long protocol during controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) under different endocrinal mechanisms. It can also achieve comparable embryological and clinical outcomes while reducing the incidence of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and HMG dosage. It can be an alternative of the treatments for infertile patients with normal ovarian reserve undergoing IVF as well as traditional protocols. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR-INR-17012089. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: Chictr.org.cn: 23 July 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLLMENT: 1 August 2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7060798
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70607982020-03-17 Comparison Between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial Xi, Qianwen Tao, Yu Qiu, Meiting Wang, Yun Kuang, Yanping Clin Epidemiol Clinical Trial Report PURPOSE: To investigate whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) can be an alternative as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) long protocol for infertile women with normal ovarian reserve during IVF/ICSI. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 257 patients was conducted between 1 August 2017 to 1 January 2018. Computerized randomization was performed to assign participants into two treatment groups at a 1:1 ratio: PPOS (130 patients) or GnRHa long protocol (127 patients) followed by their first IVF/ICSI with fresh/frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. Patients with normal ovarian reserve undergoing their first IVF/ICSI procedure were included. The embryological and clinical outcomes were measured. Only the first embryo transfer cycle was followed-up. RESULTS: Basic characteristics such as infertility duration, age, and body mass index (BMI) were comparable in both groups. No significant difference was found in the number (mean ± SD) oocytes retrieved [11.8 ± 6.5 for PPOS vs 11.3 ± 5.6 for GnRHa long protocol] or viable embryos [4.5 ± 3.0 for PPOS vs 4.2 ± 2.9 for GnRHa long protocol] between the groups. No patient from either group experienced a premature LH surge during the whole process of ovarian stimulation. Besides, there was no moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome during the ovarian stimulation in PPOS group while three patients suffered it in the GnRHa long protocol group. There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate of the first embryos transfer cycle between the two groups. CONCLUSION: PPOS in combination with embryo cryopreservation as an ovarian stimulation regimen was as effective as GnRHa long protocol during controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) under different endocrinal mechanisms. It can also achieve comparable embryological and clinical outcomes while reducing the incidence of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and HMG dosage. It can be an alternative of the treatments for infertile patients with normal ovarian reserve undergoing IVF as well as traditional protocols. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR-INR-17012089. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: Chictr.org.cn: 23 July 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLLMENT: 1 August 2017. Dove 2020-03-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7060798/ /pubmed/32184672 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S226414 Text en © 2020 Xi et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Clinical Trial Report
Xi, Qianwen
Tao, Yu
Qiu, Meiting
Wang, Yun
Kuang, Yanping
Comparison Between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title Comparison Between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full Comparison Between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_fullStr Comparison Between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison Between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_short Comparison Between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial
title_sort comparison between ppos and gnrha-long protocol in clinical outcome with the first ivf/icsi cycle: a randomized clinical trial
topic Clinical Trial Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7060798/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32184672
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S226414
work_keys_str_mv AT xiqianwen comparisonbetweenpposandgnrhalongprotocolinclinicaloutcomewiththefirstivficsicyclearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT taoyu comparisonbetweenpposandgnrhalongprotocolinclinicaloutcomewiththefirstivficsicyclearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT qiumeiting comparisonbetweenpposandgnrhalongprotocolinclinicaloutcomewiththefirstivficsicyclearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT wangyun comparisonbetweenpposandgnrhalongprotocolinclinicaloutcomewiththefirstivficsicyclearandomizedclinicaltrial
AT kuangyanping comparisonbetweenpposandgnrhalongprotocolinclinicaloutcomewiththefirstivficsicyclearandomizedclinicaltrial