Cargando…
The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval of different ovarian protocols in ART: a retrospective study
PURPOSE: To explore the trends of oocyte and pregnancy outcomes over the ovulation trigger–OPU (oocyte pickup) time interval in four mainly used COH protocols. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted between January 2013 and July 2018. The IVF/ICSI cycles of the patients with normal ovarian...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7321905/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32495015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05568-5 |
_version_ | 1783551558786482176 |
---|---|
author | Shen, Xi Long, Hui Guo, Wenya Xie, Yating Gao, Hongyuan Zhang, Jie Wang, Yun Lyu, Qifeng Kuang, Yanping Wang, Li |
author_facet | Shen, Xi Long, Hui Guo, Wenya Xie, Yating Gao, Hongyuan Zhang, Jie Wang, Yun Lyu, Qifeng Kuang, Yanping Wang, Li |
author_sort | Shen, Xi |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To explore the trends of oocyte and pregnancy outcomes over the ovulation trigger–OPU (oocyte pickup) time interval in four mainly used COH protocols. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted between January 2013 and July 2018. The IVF/ICSI cycles of the patients with normal ovarian reserve were included. The number of total patients was 4673, which consisted of long agonist protocol (n = 819), short agonist protocol (n = 1703), mild stimulation protocol (n = 1627), and GnRH antagonist protocol (n = 524). The primary outcome was mature oocyte rate. RESULTS: The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval and COH protocol were related to cycles with > 80% MII oocytes. Four protocols showed apparently different trends of retrieved oocyte rate and mature oocyte rate over the ovulation trigger–OPU time interval, and the long agonist protocol had the most delayed time interval than other three COH protocols in retrieving more than 60% oocytes (35.4–39.6 h vs. 34.6–38.6 h vs. 32.5–37.5 h vs. 33.8–37.7 h) and getting more than 80% mature oocytes (35.0–39.7 h vs. 36.0–37.7 h vs. 34.1–35.5 h vs. 34.5–36.3 h). And the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) (OR 1.360, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.156–1.549, P < 0.05) significantly increased with the trigger–OPU time interval in the long agonist protocol. CONCLUSIONS: For getting more and mature oocytes, the ovulation trigger–OPU time intervals should be gradually prolonged from the mild stimulation protocol, the GnRH antagonist protocol, and the short protocol to the long agonist protocol. And the prolonged ovulation trigger–OPU time interval in the long agonist protocol brings higher live birth rate (LBR) and CLBR. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00404-020-05568-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7321905 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73219052020-07-02 The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval of different ovarian protocols in ART: a retrospective study Shen, Xi Long, Hui Guo, Wenya Xie, Yating Gao, Hongyuan Zhang, Jie Wang, Yun Lyu, Qifeng Kuang, Yanping Wang, Li Arch Gynecol Obstet Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine PURPOSE: To explore the trends of oocyte and pregnancy outcomes over the ovulation trigger–OPU (oocyte pickup) time interval in four mainly used COH protocols. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted between January 2013 and July 2018. The IVF/ICSI cycles of the patients with normal ovarian reserve were included. The number of total patients was 4673, which consisted of long agonist protocol (n = 819), short agonist protocol (n = 1703), mild stimulation protocol (n = 1627), and GnRH antagonist protocol (n = 524). The primary outcome was mature oocyte rate. RESULTS: The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval and COH protocol were related to cycles with > 80% MII oocytes. Four protocols showed apparently different trends of retrieved oocyte rate and mature oocyte rate over the ovulation trigger–OPU time interval, and the long agonist protocol had the most delayed time interval than other three COH protocols in retrieving more than 60% oocytes (35.4–39.6 h vs. 34.6–38.6 h vs. 32.5–37.5 h vs. 33.8–37.7 h) and getting more than 80% mature oocytes (35.0–39.7 h vs. 36.0–37.7 h vs. 34.1–35.5 h vs. 34.5–36.3 h). And the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) (OR 1.360, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.156–1.549, P < 0.05) significantly increased with the trigger–OPU time interval in the long agonist protocol. CONCLUSIONS: For getting more and mature oocytes, the ovulation trigger–OPU time intervals should be gradually prolonged from the mild stimulation protocol, the GnRH antagonist protocol, and the short protocol to the long agonist protocol. And the prolonged ovulation trigger–OPU time interval in the long agonist protocol brings higher live birth rate (LBR) and CLBR. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00404-020-05568-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-06-03 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7321905/ /pubmed/32495015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05568-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine Shen, Xi Long, Hui Guo, Wenya Xie, Yating Gao, Hongyuan Zhang, Jie Wang, Yun Lyu, Qifeng Kuang, Yanping Wang, Li The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval of different ovarian protocols in ART: a retrospective study |
title | The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval of different ovarian protocols in ART: a retrospective study |
title_full | The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval of different ovarian protocols in ART: a retrospective study |
title_fullStr | The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval of different ovarian protocols in ART: a retrospective study |
title_full_unstemmed | The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval of different ovarian protocols in ART: a retrospective study |
title_short | The ovulation trigger–OPU time interval of different ovarian protocols in ART: a retrospective study |
title_sort | ovulation trigger–opu time interval of different ovarian protocols in art: a retrospective study |
topic | Gynecologic Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7321905/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32495015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05568-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shenxi theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT longhui theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT guowenya theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT xieyating theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT gaohongyuan theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT zhangjie theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT wangyun theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT lyuqifeng theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT kuangyanping theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT wangli theovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT shenxi ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT longhui ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT guowenya ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT xieyating ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT gaohongyuan ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT zhangjie ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT wangyun ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT lyuqifeng ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT kuangyanping ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy AT wangli ovulationtriggeroputimeintervalofdifferentovarianprotocolsinartaretrospectivestudy |