Yang Shuo, Chen Xin-Na, Qiao Jie, Liu Ping, Li Rong, Chen Gui-An, Ma Cai-Hong
Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China.
Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2012 Apr;47(4):245-9.
To compare the clinical outcomes of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (GnRH-ant) fixed protocol with GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) long protocol in infertile patients with normal ovarian reserve function in their first in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycle, and to explore the feasibility and advantage of GnRH antagonist protocol performed in normal responders.
From January 2011 to June 2011, 771 infertile women with normal ovarian reserve function underwent their first IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in Peking University Third Hospital, which were divided into 245 cycles in GnRH-ant fixed protocol group (GnRH-ant group) and 526 cycles in GnRH-a long protocol group (GnRH-a group). The data of general demographic, treatment and clinical outcome were compared between two groups.
Age, infertile duration, body mass index (BMI), baseline serum follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and estradiol levels between two groups did not reached statistical difference (P > 0.05). The level of estradiol was (12 289 ± 6856) pmol/L in GnRH-ant group and (14 934 ± 8007) pmol/L in GnRH-a group at day of hCG injection. The mean length of stimulation was (10.3 ± 1.2) days in GnRH-ant group and (12.8 ± 1.6) days in GnRH-a group. The dose of gonadotropin was (2013 ± 607) U in GnRH-ant group and (2646 ± 913) U in GnRH-a group. The number of ovum was 15 ± 7 in GnRH-ant group and 17 ± 8 in GnRh-a group. Those clinical parameter all reached statistical difference (P < 0.05). The number of embryo was 7 ± 4 in GnRH-ant group and 8 ± 5 in GnRH-a group, the rate of clinical pregnancy was 40.9% (94/230) in GnRH-ant group and 45.6% (216/474) in GnRH-a group, the rate of implantation was 26.1% (128/490) in GnRH-ant group and 30.9% (307/994) in GnRH-a group, the rate of continuing pregnancy was 38.7% (89/230) in GnRH-ant group and 42.6% (202/474)in GnRH-a group, those parameter did not reach statistical difference (P > 0.05). The rate of moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was 2.4% (6/245) in GnRH-ant group and 4.2% (22/526) in GnRH-a group, which did not show significant difference (P > 0.05).
In the first IVF or ICSI cycle of the patients with normal ovarian reserve function, the fixed GnRH-ant protocol could get the same satisfied clinical outcome, and it is more economic, convenient and safer compared with low dose depot GnRH-a long protocol.
比较促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)拮抗剂(GnRH-ant)固定方案与GnRH激动剂(GnRH-a)长方案在首次体外受精-胚胎移植(IVF-ET)周期中卵巢储备功能正常的不孕患者的临床结局,探讨GnRH拮抗剂方案在正常反应者中应用的可行性及优势。
2011年1月至2011年6月,771例卵巢储备功能正常的不孕女性在北京大学第三医院接受首次IVF或卵胞浆内单精子注射(ICSI)周期治疗,分为GnRH-ant固定方案组(GnRH-ant组)245个周期和GnRH-a长方案组(GnRH-a组)526个周期。比较两组的一般人口学、治疗及临床结局数据。
两组患者的年龄、不孕年限、体重指数(BMI)、基线血清卵泡刺激素(FSH)及雌二醇水平差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。hCG注射日时,GnRH-ant组雌二醇水平为(12 289±6856)pmol/L,GnRH-a组为(14 934±8007)pmol/L。GnRH-ant组平均促排卵天数为(10.3±1.2)天,GnRH-a组为(12.8±1.6)天。GnRH-ant组促性腺激素用量为(2013±607)U,GnRH-a组为(2646±913)U。GnRH-ant组获卵数为15±7个,GnRh-a组为17±8个。这些临床参数均有统计学差异(P<0.05)。GnRH-ant组胚胎数为7±4个,GnRH-a组为8±5个;GnRH-ant组临床妊娠率为40.9%(94/230),GnRH-a组为45.6%(216/474);GnRH-ant组种植率为26.1%(128/490),GnRH-a组为30.9%(307/994);GnRH-ant组持续妊娠率为38.7%(89/230),GnRH-a组为42.6%(202/474),这些参数差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。GnRH-ant组中重度卵巢过度刺激综合征发生率为2.4%(6/245),GnRH-a组为4.2%(22/526),差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。
在卵巢储备功能正常患者的首次IVF或ICSI周期中,GnRH-ant固定方案可获得同样满意的临床结局,与低剂量长效GnRH-a长方案相比,更经济、便捷且安全。