Fertility and sterility · 2016
Is the type of gonadotropin-releasing hormone suppression protocol for ovarian hyperstimulation associated with ectopic pregnancy in fresh autologous cycles for in vitro fertilization?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Londra Laura, Moreau Caroline, Strobino Donna, Bhasin Aarti, Zhao Yulian
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between different ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and ectopic pregnancy (EP) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in fresh autologous embryo transfer cycles in the United States between 2008 and 2011 as reported to the Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART).
DESIGN: Historical cohort study.
SETTING: Not applicable.
PATIENT(S): None.
INTERVENTION(S): None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): All autologous cycles that resulted in a clinical pregnancy after a fresh, intrauterine embryo transfer and described characteristics of cycles according to protocol were included: luteal GnRH agonist, GnRH agonist flare, or GnRH antagonist. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to investigate the association between type of protocol and EP.
RESULT(S): Among 136,605 clinical pregnancies, 2,645 (1.94%) were EP. Ectopic pregnancy was more frequent with GnRH antagonist (2.4%) cycles than with GnRH agonist flare (2.1%) or luteal GnRH agonist (1.6%) cycles. After adjusting for maternal and treatment characteristics, the GnRH antagonist and the GnRH agonist flare protocols were associated with increased odds of EP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-1.65; and aOR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44, respectively) compared with luteal GnRH agonist. Analysis of differences in the factors related to EP in luteal GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocols indicated that diminished ovarian reserve was associated with an increased risk of EP in luteal GnRH agonist but not in GnRH antagonist cycles.
CONCLUSION(S): The type of protocol used during ovarian hyperstimulation in fresh autologous cycles was associated with EP. This finding suggests a role for extrapituitary GnRH on the tubal and uterine environment during ovarian hyperstimulation treatment for IVF.
DESIGN: Historical cohort study.
SETTING: Not applicable.
PATIENT(S): None.
INTERVENTION(S): None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): All autologous cycles that resulted in a clinical pregnancy after a fresh, intrauterine embryo transfer and described characteristics of cycles according to protocol were included: luteal GnRH agonist, GnRH agonist flare, or GnRH antagonist. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to investigate the association between type of protocol and EP.
RESULT(S): Among 136,605 clinical pregnancies, 2,645 (1.94%) were EP. Ectopic pregnancy was more frequent with GnRH antagonist (2.4%) cycles than with GnRH agonist flare (2.1%) or luteal GnRH agonist (1.6%) cycles. After adjusting for maternal and treatment characteristics, the GnRH antagonist and the GnRH agonist flare protocols were associated with increased odds of EP (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39-1.65; and aOR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44, respectively) compared with luteal GnRH agonist. Analysis of differences in the factors related to EP in luteal GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocols indicated that diminished ovarian reserve was associated with an increased risk of EP in luteal GnRH agonist but not in GnRH antagonist cycles.
CONCLUSION(S): The type of protocol used during ovarian hyperstimulation in fresh autologous cycles was associated with EP. This finding suggests a role for extrapituitary GnRH on the tubal and uterine environment during ovarian hyperstimulation treatment for IVF.