4.2 Article

Infertility treatment strategy involving combined freeze-all embryos and single vitrified-warmed embryo transfer during hormonal replacement cycle for in vitro fertilization of women with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jog.13597

关键词

elective single embryo transfer; embryo vitrification; hormone replacement therapy; hypogonadotropic hypogonadism; in vitro fertilization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (HH) is a condition caused by the deficient secretion of pituitary gonadotropins, leading to diminished ovarian function. Several studies of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in women with HH revealed acceptable clinical pregnancy outcomes but high multiple pregnancy rates after multiple fresh embryo transfer (ET). The purpose of this study was to analyze the outcomes of combined freeze-all embryos and single vitrified-warmed ET in women with HH. Methods: Of 91 infertile women with HH (basal luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone levels <2.0 mIU/mL), we excluded patients aged >= 40 years (n = 2) and women who preferred fresh ET (n = 10). Seventy-nine women underwent 117 oocyte retrieval cycles and 135 vitrified-warmed ET during hormone replacement (HR) cycles from 2008 to 2014 at the Kato Ladies Clinic and Juntendo University Hospital. Results: In 26 single cleavage ET cycles, the rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth were 34.6% (9/26 ET) and 26.9% (7/26 ET), respectively. Regarding the outcomes after single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were 65.1% (71/109 ET) and 50.5% (55/109 ET), respectively. Multiple conceptions and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome did not occur in any of the women with HH. Conclusion: Our results demonstrated that IVF followed by single vitrified-warmed ET in adjusted endocrine milieu during the HR cycle is an effective fertility treatment for women with HH and decreases the incidence of complications, including multiple conceptions.

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

4.2
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