4.7 Article

450 IU versus 600 IU gonadotropin for controlled ovarian stimulation in poor responders: a randomized controlled trial

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 104, 期 6, 页码 1419-1425

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.08.014

关键词

In vitro fertilization; poor ovarian responder; controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; flare-up protocol; gonadotropin dose

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the outcomes of controlled ovarian stimulation/in vitro fertilization cycles using 450 IU and 600 IU gonadotropin per day in women at risk of poor ovarian response. Design: Prospective randomized controlled nonblinded study. Setting: University-affiliated private IVF center. Patient(s): Women considered to be at risk of poor ovarian response: aged <41 years with basal FSH >10 IU/L, antimullerian hormone <1 ng/mL, antral follicle count <= 8, or a previous IVF cycle with >= 300 IU/d gonadotropin that resulted in a cancellation,<8 follicles, or <5 oocytes. Intervention(s): A total of 356 patients underwent a microdose GnRH agonist flare-up IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection protocol with a fixed daily dose of either 450 IU FSH (n = 176) or 600 IU FSH (n = 180) equally divided between Menopur and Bravelle. Main Outcome Measure(s): Number of mature oocytes retrieved. Result(s): The two groups were similar in terms of age, ovarian reserve, cause of infertility, duration of stimulation, and cycle cancellation rate. There were no significant differences in the number of metaphase II oocytes retrieved (4 [range 0-6] vs. 4 [range 2-7]), fertilization rate (62.4% vs. 57.0%), biochemical pregnancy rate (20.5% vs. 22.9%), clinical pregnancy rate (16.4% vs. 18.3%), and implantation rate (29.8% vs. 30.4%) between the 450 IU and 600 IU groups, respectively. Conclusion(s): Gonadotropin of 600 IU/d does not improve outcome of IVF cycles compared with 450 IU/d in women at risk of poor ovarian response. (C) 2015 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据