4.7 Article

GnRH agonist as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction technique cycles: results of a pilot study

期刊

HUMAN REPRODUCTION
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 1894-1900

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/del072

关键词

ART; buserelin; GnRH agonist; GnRH antagonist; luteal support

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to investigate whether intranasal (IN) administration of a GnRH agonist could provide luteal support in IVF/ICSI patients. METHODS: Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) was performed using hMG/FSH and a GnRH antagonist. Patients were then randomly allocated to either 10 000 IU hCG, followed by vaginal administration of micronized progesterone (3x 200 mg/day) (group A), or 200 mu g IN buserelin followed by either 100 mu g every 2 days (group B), or 100 mu g every day (group C), or 100 mu g twice a day (group D), or 100 mu g three times a day (group E). Luteal support was continued for 15 days. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were randomized. Groups B and C were discontinued prematurely in view of the short luteal phase. The luteal phase was significantly shorter in groups B, C and D, whereas group E was comparable with group A, 13.5 and 13.0 days, respectively. In the mid-luteal phase, median progesterone levels were significantly lower in groups B, C and D, whereas group E was comparable with group A, 68.9 and 98.0 ng/ml, respectively. Estradiol (E-2) was significantly reduced in groups B and D but sustained in group E. In the hCG group, LH levels were undetectable (< 0.1 IU/l), whereas LH was detectable and significantly higher in groups C, D and E. Two pregnancies were obtained in the hCG group (two of five), one ectopic and one ongoing. Three pregnancies were obtained in group E, one miscarriage and two ongoing twin pregnancies (three of five). CONCLUSION: IN administration of buserelin may be effective in triggering follicular maturation and providing luteal phase support in patients undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART).

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