4.7 Article

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing three different gonadotropin regimens in oocyte donors: ovarian response, in vitro fertilization outcome, and analysis of cost minimization

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 94, 期 3, 页码 958-964

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.05.005

关键词

Cost minimization; embryo quality; IVF outcome; menotropin; recombinant FSH; oocyte donation; oocyte quality; ovarian stimulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the efficacy of three different gonadotropin regimens in an oocyte donation program. The analysis of cost minimization also was evaluated. Design: Prospective, randomized, controlled study. Setting: Instituto Universitario-IVI, Valencia, Spain. Patient(s): One thousand twenty-eight donors undergoing a GnRH agonist protocol were assigned randomly to one of three groups: group 1 (n = 346), only recombinant FSH (rFSH); group 2 ( n 333), only highly purified menotropin (HP-hMG); and group 3 (n = 349), rFSH plus HP-hMG. One thousand seventy-nine oocyte recipients. Intervention(s): Controlled ovarian stimulation. Main Outcome Measure(s): Controlled ovarian stimulation parameters, IVF outcome, and cost analysis. Result(s): No differences were found among the groups with respect to days of stimulation, gonadotropin dose, final E-2 and P levels, number of oocytes retrieved, and cancellation rate. Similarly, there were no differences among the groups in terms of embryo development parameters. Moreover, implantation, pregnancy, and miscarriage rates with the three regimens were similar. However, the cost of rFSH was greater than that of the other protocols. Conclusion(s): This study suggests that in the GnRH agonist protocol the three different gonadotropin regimens evaluated herein are equally effective. Protocols using HP-hMG would appear to be the best in terms of cost-effectiveness in an oocyte donation program. (Fertil Steril (R) 2010; 94: 958-64. (c) 2010 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