Luteal-phase protocol in poor ovarian response: a comparative study with an antagonist protocol

Yan Wu, Fu-Chun Zhao, Yong Sun, Pei-Shu Liu, Yan Wu, Fu-Chun Zhao, Yong Sun, Pei-Shu Liu

Abstract

Objective This retrospective study compared the effect of the luteal phase ovarian stimulation protocol (LP group) with the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol (AN group) in women with poor ovarian responses. Methods Ovarian stimulation was initiated with 225 IU of human gonadotrophin (hMG) daily. When the dominant follicle diameter exceeded 13 mm, 0.25 mg of a GnRH antagonist was used daily until human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration in the AN group. A GnRH antagonist was not used in the LP group. Ovulation was induced with HCG for all patients when at least one follicle reached a diameter of 16 mm or one dominant follicle reached 18 mm. The highest quality embryos were transferred or cryopreserved for later transfer. Results From January 2013 to December 2015, 274 women with poor ovarian response were included. A total of 108 patients underwent the luteal phase ovarian stimulation protocol while 166 patients underwent the GnRH antagonist protocol. hMG was used for more total days in the LP group was than in the AN group. Oestradiol levels on the day of HCG administration in the LP group were significantly lower than those in the AN group. The mean number of oocytes retrieved in the LP and AN groups was 3.5 ± 2.5 and 3.5 ± 2.9, respectively. The mean number of embryos of the highest quality was 1.7 ± 1.2 and 1.7 ± 1.5, respectively. The clinical pregnancy and implantation rates in the LP and AN groups were 26.2% (22/84) and 25% (29/116), and 15.5% (24/155) and 16.3% (35/215), respectively. Conclusions The luteal phase ovarian stimulation protocol can be applied in women with poor ovarian response and attain comparable clinical pregnancy and implantation rates to those of the GnRH antagonist protocol.

Keywords: GnRH antagonist; Ovarian stimulation; frozen embryo transfer; luteal phase; poor responder.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
The luteal phase ovarian stimulation protocol (LP) group.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
The GnRH antagonist protocol (AN) group.

References

    1. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, et al. Predictors of poor ovarian response in invitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 2002; 77: 328–336.
    1. Jenkins JM, Davies DW, Devonport H, et al. Comparison of “poor” responders with “go” sponders using a standard buserelin/human menopausal gonadotrophin regime for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1991; 6: 918–921.
    1. Pellicer A, Lightman A, Diamond MP, et al. Outcome of in-vitro fertilization in women with low response to ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 1987; 47: 812–815.
    1. Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA. A new model for ovarian follicular development during the human menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril 2003; 80: 116–122.
    1. Maman E, Meirow D, Brengauz M, et al. Luteal phase oocyte retrieval and in vitro maturation is an optional procedure for urgent fertility preservation. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 64–67.
    1. Demirtas E, Elizur SE, Holzer H, et al. Immature oocyte retrieval in the luteal phase to preserve fertility in cancer patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 520–523.
    1. Bedoschi GM, de Albuquerque FO, Ferriani RA, et al. Ovarian stimulation during the luteal phase for fertility preservation of cancer patients: case reports and review of the literature. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet 2010; 27: 491–494.
    1. Von Wolff M, Thaler CJ, Frambach T, et al. Ovarian stimulation to cryopreserve fertilized oocytes in cancer patients can be started in the luteal phase. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 1360–1365.
    1. Xu B, Li Y. Flexible ovarian stimulation in a poor responder: a case report and literature review. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26: 378–383.
    1. Kuang Y, Hong Q, Chen Q, et al. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 105–111.
    1. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 1616–1624.
    1. Cummins JM, Breen TM, Harrison KL, et al. A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1986; 3: 284–295.
    1. Hong QQ, Cai RF, Kuang YP. Study on endometrial preparation with letrozole in frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Reprod Contracept 2010; 30: 445–448.
    1. Kyrou D, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, et al. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 749–766.
    1. Chian RC, Chung JT, Downey BR, et al. Maturational and developmental competence of immature oocytes retrieved from bovine ovaries at different phases of folliculogenesis. Reprod Biomed Online 2002; 4: 127–132.
    1. Grifo JA, Noyes N. Delivery rate using cryopreserved oocytes is comparable to conventional in vitro fertilization using fresh oocytes: potential fertility preservation for female cancer patients. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 391–396.
    1. Kim TJ, Laufer LR, Hong SW. Vitrification of oocytes produces high pregnancy rates when carried out in fertile women. Fertil Steril 2010; 93: 467–474.
    1. Yarali H, Esinler I, Polat M, et al. Antagonist/letrozole protocol in poor ovarian responders for intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a comparative study with the microdose flare-up protocol. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 231–235.
    1. Ozcan Cenksoy P, Ficicioglu C, Kizilkale O, et al. The comparision of effect of microdose GnRH-a flare-up, GnRH antagonist/aromatase inhibitor letrozole and GnRH antagonist/clomiphene citrate protocols on IVF outcomes in poor responder patients. Gynecol Endocrinol 2014; 30: 485–489.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren