4.7 Article

Does prolonged pituitary down-regulation with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist improve the live-birth rate in in vitro fertilization treatment?

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 102, 期 1, 页码 75-81

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.03.030

关键词

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation; gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a); in vitro fertilization

资金

  1. Xiamen City [3502z20111006]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the effects of a prolonged duration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) in pituitary down-regulation for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) on the live-birth rate in nonendometriotic women undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: University-affiliated hospital. Patient(s): Normogonadotropic women undergoing IVF. Intervention(s): Three hundred seventy-eight patients receiving a prolonged pituitary down-regulation with GnRH-a before ovarian stimulation and 422 patients receiving a GnRH-a long protocol. Main Outcome Measure(s): Live-birth rate per fresh ET. Result(s): In comparison with the long protocol, the prolonged down-regulation protocol required a higher total dose of gonadotropins. A lower serum luteinizing hormone (LH) level on the starting day of gonadotropin and the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and a fewer number of oocytes and embryos were observed in the prolonged down-regulation protocol. However, the duration of stimulation and number of high-quality embryos were comparable between the two groups. A statistically significantly higher implantation rate (50.27% vs. 39.69%), clinical pregnancy rate (64.02% vs. 56.87%) and live-birth rate per fresh transfer cycle (55.56% vs. 45.73%) were observed in the prolonged protocol. Conclusion(s): Prolonged down-regulation in a GnRH-a protocol might increase the live-birth rates in normogonadotropic women. (C) 2014 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