Reproductive medicine and biology · 2011
Comparison between the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and the gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist long protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in the first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycle in an unspecified population of infertile couples.
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.
Mekaru Keiko, Yagi Chiaki, Asato Kozue, Masamoto Hitoshi, Sakumoto Kaoru, Aoki Yoichi
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We aimed to compare the efficacy of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and a GnRH agonist long protocol used in the first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycle in an unspecified population of infertile couples.
METHODS: Fifty and 34 patients were treated with a GnRH agonist long protocol (agonist group) and GnRH antagonist protocol (antagonist group), respectively, in the first treatment cycle. The primary and secondary outcome measures were cumulative live birth rates after fresh and cryopreserved-thawed ETs and incidence of grades II and III ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), respectively.
RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in clinical pregnancy rates (38.0 vs. 32.4%) and live birth rates (22.0 vs. 23.5%), which included both fresh and cryopreserved-thawed ETs, between the 2 groups. However, the incidence of grade III OHSS was significantly lower with the GnRH antagonist protocol than the GnRH agonist long protocol.
CONCLUSIONS: Used in the first IVF-ET cycle in an unspecified population of infertile patients, the GnRH antagonist protocol showed the same clinical outcome as the GnRH agonist long protocol.
METHODS: Fifty and 34 patients were treated with a GnRH agonist long protocol (agonist group) and GnRH antagonist protocol (antagonist group), respectively, in the first treatment cycle. The primary and secondary outcome measures were cumulative live birth rates after fresh and cryopreserved-thawed ETs and incidence of grades II and III ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), respectively.
RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in clinical pregnancy rates (38.0 vs. 32.4%) and live birth rates (22.0 vs. 23.5%), which included both fresh and cryopreserved-thawed ETs, between the 2 groups. However, the incidence of grade III OHSS was significantly lower with the GnRH antagonist protocol than the GnRH agonist long protocol.
CONCLUSIONS: Used in the first IVF-ET cycle in an unspecified population of infertile patients, the GnRH antagonist protocol showed the same clinical outcome as the GnRH agonist long protocol.