Cargando…

Ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues

OBJECTIVE: Analysis and compare data between two induction protocols (long agonist and flexible antagonist) in patients submitted an assisted reproduction technique in Porto Alegre. METHODS: Cross-sectional study comparing the intermediate results with the use of two different ovarian stimulation pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Montenegro, Ivan S., Faller, Mariana, de Almeida, Isabel C. A., Passos, Eduardo P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9236651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35761725
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20140003
_version_ 1784736584589901824
author Montenegro, Ivan S.
Faller, Mariana
de Almeida, Isabel C. A.
Passos, Eduardo P.
author_facet Montenegro, Ivan S.
Faller, Mariana
de Almeida, Isabel C. A.
Passos, Eduardo P.
author_sort Montenegro, Ivan S.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Analysis and compare data between two induction protocols (long agonist and flexible antagonist) in patients submitted an assisted reproduction technique in Porto Alegre. METHODS: Cross-sectional study comparing the intermediate results with the use of two different ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus antagonist to assisted reproductive techniques. The statistical analysis of the retrieved data (age, body mass index, number of oocytes recovered, number of fertilized oocytes, number of oocytes cleaved, total dose of FSH used and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome) was performed by Student’s t-test for parametric data and analysis of covariance for the dependent variables. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients, 25 in each group, met the criteria for inclusion in the study between January and March in the year 2010. There was statistically significant difference only in the middle ages between the groups (P = 0.031). There was no statistical difference for the remaining data analyzed (body mass index, number of oocytes recovered, number of fertilized oocytes, number of oocytes cleaved and dose of FSH utilized). There were no cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. CONCLUSION: Both protocols are equal in terms of results. The agonist has advantages about scheduling of the procedure, but it takes too long to start the stimulation and have possibility to start medication in a pregnant patient. Added to this, we have the possibility of getting the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome as complication. In the antagonist group, is clear the ease-of-use of the medication and the fastest start of stimulation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9236651
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92366512022-06-28 Ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues Montenegro, Ivan S. Faller, Mariana de Almeida, Isabel C. A. Passos, Eduardo P. JBRA Assist Reprod Original Article OBJECTIVE: Analysis and compare data between two induction protocols (long agonist and flexible antagonist) in patients submitted an assisted reproduction technique in Porto Alegre. METHODS: Cross-sectional study comparing the intermediate results with the use of two different ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus antagonist to assisted reproductive techniques. The statistical analysis of the retrieved data (age, body mass index, number of oocytes recovered, number of fertilized oocytes, number of oocytes cleaved, total dose of FSH used and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome) was performed by Student’s t-test for parametric data and analysis of covariance for the dependent variables. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients, 25 in each group, met the criteria for inclusion in the study between January and March in the year 2010. There was statistically significant difference only in the middle ages between the groups (P = 0.031). There was no statistical difference for the remaining data analyzed (body mass index, number of oocytes recovered, number of fertilized oocytes, number of oocytes cleaved and dose of FSH utilized). There were no cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. CONCLUSION: Both protocols are equal in terms of results. The agonist has advantages about scheduling of the procedure, but it takes too long to start the stimulation and have possibility to start medication in a pregnant patient. Added to this, we have the possibility of getting the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome as complication. In the antagonist group, is clear the ease-of-use of the medication and the fastest start of stimulation. Brazilian Society of Assisted Reproduction 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC9236651/ /pubmed/35761725 http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20140003 Text en https://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
Montenegro, Ivan S.
Faller, Mariana
de Almeida, Isabel C. A.
Passos, Eduardo P.
Ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues
title Ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues
title_full Ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues
title_fullStr Ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues
title_full_unstemmed Ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues
title_short Ovarian stimulation with GnRH analogues
title_sort ovarian stimulation with gnrh analogues
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9236651/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35761725
http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20140003
work_keys_str_mv AT montenegroivans ovarianstimulationwithgnrhanalogues
AT fallermariana ovarianstimulationwithgnrhanalogues
AT dealmeidaisabelca ovarianstimulationwithgnrhanalogues
AT passoseduardop ovarianstimulationwithgnrhanalogues