4.7 Article

Minimal stimulation using recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in women of advanced age

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 81, Issue 4, Pages 1002-1006

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.09.050

Keywords

age; cost-effective; in vitro fertilization; FSH; GnRH antagonist; minimal stimulation; natural cycle; spontaneous cycle

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine whether minimal stimulation with short-term application of low-dose recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) together with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist represents a cost-effective treatment regimen for patients with elevated FSH levels, aged 40 and above. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Academically affiliated private in vitro fertilization (IVF) program. Patient(s): Eighty-five IVF cycles using minimal ovarian stimulation and 85 cycles with a standard long-stimulation protocol, conducted between January 2000 and January 2002, in women aged 40 and above who had slightly increased FSH levels. Intervention(s): Patients on the long protocol underwent standard cycle monitoring and stimulation. In contrast, women with minimal stimulation had transvaginal sonography initiated on day 8 of the menstrual cycle and at a follicle size of 13 mm. We administered 0.25 mg of GnRH antagonist and 75 IU recombinant FSH daily until ovulation induction. Main Outcome Measure(s): Numbers of oocytes, and rates of cancellation and pregnancy. Result(s): Minimal stimulation cycles resulted in a clinical pregnancy rate of 8.2% per started cycle and 10% per embryo transfer (ET), whereas the control group yielded a clinical pregnancy rate of 10.6% per started cycle and of 10.7% per ET (not statistically significant). Conclusion(s): In women aged 40 and above with abnormal FSH levels, minimal stimulation protocol achieves similar pregnancy rates to a standard protocol, and thus represents a cost-effective alternative. (C) 2004 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available