F&S science · 2023
Progesterone-primed cycles result in slower embryos without compromising implantation potential and with the advantages of oral administration and potential cost reduction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Braga Daniela Paes de Almeida Ferreira, Setti Amanda, Carrilho Edward, Guilherme Patrícia, Iaconelli Assumpto, Borges Edson
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of the use of progesterone on embryo morphokinetics and on the outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles.
DESIGN: Cohort study.
SETTING: Private university-affiliated in vitro fertilization center.
PATIENT(S): This study included 236 freeze-all intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles and the resultant 2,768 injected oocytes cultured in a time-lapse imaging incubation system. Patients were matched by age and divided into groups depending on the protocol used to prevent the luteinizing hormone surge: progestin-primed (144 cycles and 1,360 embryos) and gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (144 cycles and 1,408 embryos) groups.
INTERVENTION(S): The kinetic recorded markers were time to pronuclear appearance and fading, time to 2-8 cells, time to morulation, time to start of blastulation, and time to blastulation. The durations of cell cycles and time to complete synchronous divisions were calculated. The Known Implantation Data Score ranking was recorded. Morphokinetics and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Embryo morphokinetics and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Slower time to pronuclear appearance, time to 2 cells, time to 7 cells, time to start of blastulation, and time to blastulation were observed in embryos derived from progestin-primed cycles than in those from the GnRH antagonist group. No significant differences were noted in any other morphokinetic milestone. Significantly higher cancellation and implantation rates were observed in the progestin-primed group. However, no significant differences were noted in the pregnancy and miscarriage rates. The expenses for treatment using premature GnRH antagonist and progestins were US$318.18 and US$11.05, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Exogenous progesterone replaces the GnRH antagonist for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge, in freeze-all cycles, with the advantage of oral administration and potential cost reduction.
DESIGN: Cohort study.
SETTING: Private university-affiliated in vitro fertilization center.
PATIENT(S): This study included 236 freeze-all intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles and the resultant 2,768 injected oocytes cultured in a time-lapse imaging incubation system. Patients were matched by age and divided into groups depending on the protocol used to prevent the luteinizing hormone surge: progestin-primed (144 cycles and 1,360 embryos) and gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (144 cycles and 1,408 embryos) groups.
INTERVENTION(S): The kinetic recorded markers were time to pronuclear appearance and fading, time to 2-8 cells, time to morulation, time to start of blastulation, and time to blastulation. The durations of cell cycles and time to complete synchronous divisions were calculated. The Known Implantation Data Score ranking was recorded. Morphokinetics and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Embryo morphokinetics and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Slower time to pronuclear appearance, time to 2 cells, time to 7 cells, time to start of blastulation, and time to blastulation were observed in embryos derived from progestin-primed cycles than in those from the GnRH antagonist group. No significant differences were noted in any other morphokinetic milestone. Significantly higher cancellation and implantation rates were observed in the progestin-primed group. However, no significant differences were noted in the pregnancy and miscarriage rates. The expenses for treatment using premature GnRH antagonist and progestins were US$318.18 and US$11.05, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Exogenous progesterone replaces the GnRH antagonist for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge, in freeze-all cycles, with the advantage of oral administration and potential cost reduction.