4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The clinical therapeutic window for luteinizing hormone in controlled ovarian stimulation

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 77, 期 6, 页码 1170-1177

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0015-0282(02)03157-6

关键词

follicle-stimulating hormone; folliculogenesis; luteinizing hormone; ovulation induction; in vitro fertilization; LH threshold

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To discuss the clinical therapeutic window for LH during the follicular phase. Design: Review of selected papers that were retrieved through a Medline search and a review of clinical trials, the results of which are in the process of publication. Patient(s): Women undergoing infertility treatment. Intervention (s): Recombinant human LH (r-hLH) was administered SIC as a supplement to FSH during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Main Outcome Measure(s): Folficular development, E-2 production, and endometrial thickness. Result(s): Optimal follicular maturation is the result of both FSH and LH stimulation. In patients with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, 75 IU of r-hLH and 150 IU of FSH per day resulted in more follicles and provided sufficient E-2 for optimal endometrial proliferation. Additional r-hLH (>250 IU/day), in patients with either hypogonadotropic hypogonadism or polycystic ovary disease, may precipitate a series of deleterious physiological actions leading to atresia of developing follicles. Adding r-hLH to FSH in women treated with GnRH agonist showed no benefits in terms of number of mature oocytes, fertilization, and cleavage. However, those who experience profound pituitary desensitization may benefit from adding LH to the stimulation protocol. No obvious clinical criteria have been established to define this group of patients. Conclusion(s): A threshold and ceiling level for LH (therapeutic window) is proposed. below which E, production is not adequate and above which LH may be detrimental to follicular development. (C) 2002 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