Center of Assisted Reproduction, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Fertil Steril. 2022 Oct;118(4):701-712. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.06.012. Epub 2022 Aug 6.
To determine whether gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol can improve cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) and shorten the time to live birth (TTLB) in unselected patients compared with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS).
A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study design.
Tertiary-care academic medical center.
PATIENT(S): A total of 6,520 women with infertility aged 20-50 years were included.
INTERVENTION(S): Patients underwent either the GnRH antagonist protocol (n = 5,004) or PPOS (n = 1,516) on the basis of the assessment of the attending physicians. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed with a caliper of 0.02. Women who were not matched were excluded from the analyses.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The CLBR of which the ongoing status had to be achieved within 22 months from the day of ovarian stimulation and TTLB.
RESULT(S): Each group comprised 1,424 couples after propensity score matching, and the baseline demographic characteristics of the couples after matching were comparable between the 2 groups. The cycle cancellation rate was significantly lower in the GnRH antagonist group than in the PPOS group (12.9% vs. 19.6%). The implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate per transfer were comparable between the 2 groups. However, CLBRs after 1 complete IVF cycle were significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group than in the PPOS group (36.0% vs. 32.2%; Risk ratio = 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.24). The average TTLB was significantly shorter in the GnRH antagonist group than in the PPOS group (9.3 months vs. 12.4 months). Using the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth was significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group than in the PPOS group (85.1% vs. 66.1%, Log-rank test). A Cox proportional hazard model revealed that women who underwent the antagonist protocol were 2.32 times more likely to achieve a live birth than those who used PPOS (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.32; 95% CI, 1.91-2.83). Subgroup analysis revealed that women who used the antagonist protocol were more likely to achieve a live birth than women who used PPOS across the 3 antral follicle count (AFC) strata (AFC ≤ 5, AFC 6-15, and AFC > 15), 2 age strata (<35 and ≥35 years), and first cycle or repeated cycle. The difference was greatest among women whose AFC was ≤5 and who were aged ≥35 years, effectively becoming smaller in the group with high ovarian reserve and younger age.
CONCLUSION(S): In unselected women undergoing IVF, the GnRH antagonist protocol was associated with a higher CLBR and a shorter TTLB compared with PPOS.
确定与孕激素预刺激卵巢刺激(PPOS)相比,促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)拮抗剂方案是否能提高未选择患者的累积活产率(CLBR)并缩短活产时间(TTLB)。
倾向评分匹配回顾性队列研究设计。
三级保健学术医疗中心。
共纳入 6520 名年龄在 20-50 岁的不孕不育女性。
根据主治医生的评估,患者接受 GnRH 拮抗剂方案(n=5004)或 PPOS(n=1516)。采用 0.02 的卡尺进行一对一倾向评分匹配。未匹配的女性被排除在分析之外。
CLBR 是指在卵巢刺激后 22 个月内必须达到的持续状态,TTLB 也是如此。
每组在倾向评分匹配后均包括 1424 对夫妇,匹配后两组夫妇的基线人口统计学特征具有可比性。GnRH 拮抗剂组的周期取消率明显低于 PPOS 组(12.9%比 19.6%)。两组的着床率、临床妊娠率、持续妊娠率和活产率相当。然而,GnRH 拮抗剂组的 CLBR 在 1 个完整的 IVF 周期后明显高于 PPOS 组(36.0%比 32.2%;风险比=1.12;95%置信区间[CI],1.01-1.24)。GnRH 拮抗剂组的平均 TTLB 明显短于 PPOS 组(9.3 个月比 12.4 个月)。使用 Kaplan-Meier 分析,GnRH 拮抗剂组的持续妊娠导致活产的累积发生率明显高于 PPOS 组(85.1%比 66.1%,对数秩检验)。Cox 比例风险模型显示,接受拮抗剂方案的女性活产的可能性是使用 PPOS 的女性的 2.32 倍(风险比[HR]=2.32;95%CI,1.91-2.83)。亚组分析显示,在 3 个窦卵泡计数(AFC)分层(AFC≤5、AFC 6-15 和 AFC>15)、2 个年龄分层(<35 岁和≥35 岁)和第 1 个周期或重复周期中,使用拮抗剂方案的女性比使用 PPOS 的女性更有可能活产。差异在 AFC≤5 且年龄≥35 岁的女性中最大,在卵巢储备良好且年龄较小的女性中逐渐变小。
在接受 IVF 的未选择女性中,与 PPOS 相比,GnRH 拮抗剂方案与更高的 CLBR 和更短的 TTLB 相关。