Progesterone replacement with vaginal gel versus i.m. injection: cycle and pregnancy outcomes in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts

Daniel B Shapiro, Jennifer A Pappadakis, Nancy M Ellsworth, Howard I Hait, Zsolt Peter Nagy, Daniel B Shapiro, Jennifer A Pappadakis, Nancy M Ellsworth, Howard I Hait, Zsolt Peter Nagy

Abstract

Study question: Does the type of luteal support affect pregnancy outcomes in recipients of vitrified blastocysts?

Summary answer: Luteal support with vaginal progesterone gel or i.m. progesterone (IMP) results in comparable implantation and pregnancy rates in IVF patients receiving vitrified blastocysts.

What is known already: In fresh IVF cycles, both IMP and vaginal progesterone have become the standard of care for luteal phase support. Due to conflicting data in replacement cycles, IMP is often considered to be the standard of care.

Study design, size, duration: Retrospective analysis of 920 frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles between 1 January 2010 and 1 September 2012.

Participants/materials, setting, methods: Patients from a large, private practice undergoing autologous and donor FET using IMP or vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support were included in the analysis. IMP was used for luteal support in 682 FET cycles and vaginal progesterone gel was used in 238 FET cycles. Standard clinical outcomes of positive serum hCG levels, implantation, clinical pregnancy, spontaneous abortion and live birth were reported.

Main results and the role of chance: The IMP and vaginal progesterone gel groups had similar patient demographics for all characteristics assessed. Implantation rates (46.4 versus 45.6%, P = 0.81), clinical pregnancy rates (61.7 versus 60.5%, P = 0.80) and live birth rates (49.1 versus 48.9%, P > 0.99) were not significantly different between IMP and vaginal progesterone gel, respectively.

Limitations, reasons for caution: This study is limited by its retrospective design and by its lack of randomization to the type of luteal support. In addition, because no a priori expected rates of success could be provided for this retrospective investigation, it was not possible to estimate statistical power associated with the various outcomes presented.

Wider implications of the findings: With the recent trends toward single embryo transfer (SET) and use of vitrified blastocysts in FET cycles, our data with ∼40% of cycles being SET and use of exclusively vitrified blastocysts are more relevant to current practices than previous studies.

Study funding/competing interests: Support for data collection and analysis was provided by Actavis, Inc. D.S. has received honoraria for lectures and participation in Scientific Advisory Boards for Actavis, Inc. J.P. is an employee of Actavis, Inc. N.E. has received payment from Actavis, Inc., for her time for data collection. H.H. has received payment from Actavis, Inc., for statistical analyses. Z.P.N. has nothing to disclose.

Keywords: frozen embryo transfer; i.m. progesterone; luteal phase support; progesterone gel; vaginal progesterone.

© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.

References

    1. AbdelHafez FF, Desai N, Abou-Setta AM, Falcone T, Goldfarb J. Slow freezing, vitrification and ultra-rapid freezing of human embryos: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20:209–222.
    1. Berger BM, Phillips JA. A retrospective analysis of pregnancy outcomes in recipients of frozen/thawed embryos (FET) from donated oocytes at a large assisted reproductive technology (ART) center. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:S459.
    1. Berger BM, Phillips JA. Pregnancy outcomes in oocyte donation recipients: vaginal gel versus intramuscular injection progesterone replacement. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:237–242.
    1. Cercas R, Villas C, Pons I, Braña C, Fernandez-Shaw S. Vitrification can modify embryo cleavage stage after warming. Should we change endometrial preparation? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:1363–1368.
    1. Chang CC, Shapiro DB, Bernal DP, Wright G, Kort HI, Nagy ZP. Two successful pregnancies obtained following oocyte vitrification and embryo re-vitrification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16:346–349.
    1. Dal Prato L, Bianchi L, Cattoli M, Tarozzi N, Flamigni C, Borini A. Vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase supplementation: a prospective randomized trial. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;16:361–367.
    1. Escribá MJ, Bellver J, Bosch E, Sánchez M, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Delaying the initiation of progesterone supplementation until the day of fertilization does not compromise cycle outcome in patients receiving donated oocytes: a randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:92–97.
    1. Fatemi HM. The luteal phase after 3 decades of IVF: what do we know? Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;19(Suppl. 4):4331–4344.
    1. Feinberg EC, Beltsos AN, Nicolaou E, Marut EL, Uhler ML. Endometrin as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:174–178.
    1. Gibbons WE, Toner JP, Hamacher P, Kolm P. Experience with a novel vaginal progesterone preparation in a donor oocyte program. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:96–101.
    1. Jobanputra K, Toner JP, Denoncourt R, Gibbons WE. Crinone 8% (90 mg) given once daily for progesterone replacement therapy in donor egg cycles. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:980–984.
    1. Kahraman S, Karagozoglu SH, Karlikaya G. The efficiency of progesterone vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase supplementation in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: a prospective clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:761–763.
    1. Kaser DJ, Ginsburg ES, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Racowsky C. Intramuscular progesterone versus 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support for Day 3 cryopreserved embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:1464–1469.
    1. Loutradi KE, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Pados G, Bontis I, Tarlatzis BC. Cryopreservation of human embryos by vitrification or slow freezing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:186–193.
    1. Maheshwari A, Griffiths S, Bhattacharya S. Global variations in the uptake of single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:107–120.
    1. Mitwally MF, Diamond MP, Abuzeid M. Vaginal micronized progesterone versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:554–569.
    1. Nawroth F, Ludwig M. What is the ‘ideal’ duration of progesterone supplementation before the transfer of cryopreserved-thawed embryos in estrogen/progesterone replacement protocols? Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1127–1134.
    1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Progesterone supplementation during the luteal phase and in early pregnancy in the treatment of infertility: an educational bulletin. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:789–792.
    1. Racowsky C, Vernon M, Mayer J, Ball GD, Behr B, Pomeroy KO, Wininger D, Gibbons W, Conaghan J, Stern JE. Standardization of grading embryo morphology. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1152–1153.
    1. Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S, Solà I, Geber S, Carreras R, Checa MA. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:156–162.
    1. SART (Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology) Clinic Outcome Reporting System. . (24 February 2014, date last accessed)
    1. Schoolcraft WB, Hesla JS, Gee MJ. Experience with progesterone gel for luteal support in a highly successful IVF programme. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1284–1288.
    1. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Ross R. Contrasting patterns in in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates among fresh autologous, fresh oocyte donor, and cryopreserved cycles with the use of Day 5 or Day 6 blastocysts may reflect differences in embryo–endometrium synchrony. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:20–26.
    1. Silverberg KM, Vaughn TC, Hansard LJ, Burger NZ, Minter T. Vaginal (Crinone 8%) gel versus intramuscular progesterone in oil for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a large prospective trial. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:344–348.
    1. Trounson A, Mohr L. Human pregnancy following cryopreservation, thawing and transfer of an eight-cell embryo. Nature. 1983;305:707–709.
    1. van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JA, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CD009154.
    1. Van Steirteghem AC, Nagy ZP, Joris H, Liu J, Staessen C, Smitz J, Wisanto A, Devroey P. High fertilization and implantation rates after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod. 1993;8:1061–1066.
    1. Williams SC, Donahue J, Muasher SJ. Vaginal progesterone therapy during programmed cycles for frozen embryo transfer: An analysis of serum progesterone levels and pregnancy rates. Fertil Steril. 2000;74:S209.
    1. Yanushpolsky E, Hurwitz S, Greenberg L, Racowsky C, Hornstein M. Crinone vaginal gel is equally effective and better tolerated than intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:2596–2599.
    1. Zarutskie PW, Phillips JA. A meta-analysis of the route of administration of luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology: vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:163–169.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel