Suppr超能文献

轻度刺激方案与传统控制性卵巢刺激方案对卵巢反应不良患者的前瞻性随机对照研究。

Mild stimulation protocol vs conventional controlled ovarian stimulation protocol in poor ovarian response patients: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Reproductive Medicine Research Center, The Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510655, China.

出版信息

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020 May;301(5):1331-1339. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05513-6. Epub 2020 Mar 24.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare the efficacy of mild ovarian stimulation protocol and conventional controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol for poor ovarian response (POR) patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

METHODS

This single-center prospective randomized controlled trial conducted from September 2013 to September 2015, including 191 patients who met the Bologna criteria of POR. Ninety-seven patients allocated to the mild ovarian stimulation group (MS group) were stimulated according to the letrozole/antagonist protocol, while 94 patients in the controlled ovarian stimulation group (COS group) were stimulated according to a high dose of gonadotropin (Gn) combined with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) stop protocol. The cumulative live birth rate was the primary outcome. Chinese clinical trial number ChiCTR-TRC-13003454.

RESULTS

Comparing with the COS group, both the stimulation duration and the total gonadotropin dose were significantly shorter and lower in the MS group (P < 0.001). A higher number of retrieved oocytes (P = 0.003) and transferrable embryos (P = 0.029) were obtained in the COS group. The cumulative live birth rates (OR 1.103; 95% CI 0.53 to 2.28; P = 0.791) were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase of Gn dose during ovulation stimulation was associated with a higher number of transferrable embryos for POR patients, but this increase did not lead to a concomitant improvement of reproductive outcome, especially in terms of the cumulative live birth rate. Using a mild stimulation protocol was economically preferential while it was as effective as higher doses of Gn stimulation protocol in reproductive outcome for POR patients.

摘要

目的

比较轻度卵巢刺激方案和传统控制性卵巢刺激(COS)方案对卵巢反应不良(POR)患者行体外受精/卵胞浆内单精子注射(IVF/ICSI)的疗效。

方法

本单中心前瞻性随机对照试验于 2013 年 9 月至 2015 年 9 月进行,纳入符合博洛尼亚 POR 标准的 191 例患者。97 例患者被分配至轻度卵巢刺激组(MS 组),根据来曲唑/拮抗剂方案进行刺激,94 例患者被分配至控制性卵巢刺激组(COS 组),根据高剂量促性腺激素(Gn)联合促性腺激素释放激素激动剂(GnRH-a)抑制方案进行刺激。累积活产率为主要结局。中国临床试验注册号 ChiCTR-TRC-13003454。

结果

与 COS 组相比,MS 组的刺激持续时间和总促性腺激素剂量均显著缩短和降低(P<0.001)。COS 组获得了更多的可回收卵母细胞(P=0.003)和可移植胚胎(P=0.029)。两组的累积活产率(OR 1.103;95%CI 0.53 至 2.28;P=0.791)相当。

结论

排卵刺激期间 Gn 剂量的增加与 POR 患者可移植胚胎数量的增加相关,但这种增加并没有带来生殖结局的同步改善,尤其是在累积活产率方面。使用轻度刺激方案具有经济优势,同时在 POR 患者的生殖结局方面与更高剂量 Gn 刺激方案同样有效。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验