4.4 Article

Comparison of the effects of letrozole and cabergoline on vascular permeability, ovarian diameter, ovarian tissue VEGF levels, and blood PEDF levels, in a rat model of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 293, Issue 5, Pages 1101-1106

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-015-3987-4

Keywords

Letrozole; Cabergoline; Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; Vascular endothelial growth factor; Pigment epithelium-derived growth factor

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To evaluate the effects of letrozole and cabergoline in a rat model of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). In this prospective, controlled experimental study, the 28 female Wistar rats were divided into four subgroups (one non-stimulated control and three OHSS-positive groups: placebo, letrozole, and cabergoline). To induce OHSS, rats were injected with 10 IU of pregnant mare serum gonadotropin from day 29 to day 32 of life, followed by subcutaneous injection of 30 IU hCG on day 33. Letrozole rats received with a single dose of 0.1 mg/kg letrozole via oral gavage, on the hCG day. Cabergoline rats received with a single dose of 100 A mu g/kg cabergoline via oral gavage, on the hCG day. All animals were compared in terms of body weight, vascular permeability (VP), ovarian diameter, ovarian tissue VEGF expression (assessed via immunohistochemical staining), and blood pigment epithelium-derived growth factor (PEDF) levels. The OHSS-positive placebo group (group 2) exhibited the highest VP, ovarian diameter, extent of VEGF staining, and lowest PEDF level, as expected. No significant difference was evident between the letrozole and cabergoline groups in terms of any of body weight; VP; PEDF level; ovarian diameter; or the staining intensity of, or percentage staining for, VEGF in ovarian tissues. Letrozole and cabergoline were equally effective to prevent OHSS, reducing the ovarian diameter, VP, and PEDF and VEGF levels to similar extents.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available