Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-XIANGYA, Changsha, China; Key Laboratory of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, National Health and Family Planning Commission, Changsha, China.
Reproductive and Genetic Hospital of CITIC-XIANGYA, Changsha, China; Key Laboratory of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, National Health and Family Planning Commission, Changsha, China; Institute of Reproductive and Stem Cell Engineering, Basic Medicine College, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Reprod Biomed Online. 2022 Oct;45(4):721-726. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.03.003. Epub 2022 Mar 8.
Do differences exist in euploidy rates in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles with oral dydrogesterone primed ovarian stimulation protocol or the flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol?
A retrospective cohort study. Patients received the oral dydrogesterone or the GnRH antagonist in the first PGT-A cycle between November 2017 and May 2019. Propensity matching was used to identify a propensity-matched antagonist group based on age, BMI and AMH with a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the rate of euploid embryos.
A total of 780 cycles were included, consisting of 390 cycles receiving dydrogesterone and 390 cycles receiving GnRH antagonist protocol. No significant difference was found in patient baseline and cycle characteristics in the two groups. No statistical difference was found in the number of oocytes retrieved, metaphase II oocytes, embryos biopsied and embryo testing between the two groups. As no biopsy blastocysts formed in some cycles, only 262 cycles in the study group and 263 cycles in the antagonist group received next-generation sequencing testing, respectively. Similar to our overall data, the euploid rate per embryo biopsied was not significantly different. No significant differences were found between the two groups after stratifying by age and controlling for PGT-A testing modality.
Ovulation inhibition by exogenous progestins in ovarian stimulation cycles should, therefore, be considered a valid modality in freeze-all PGT-A cycles, in view of its demonstrated effectiveness and known safety enhancement.
在使用口服地屈孕酮促排卵方案或灵活的促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)拮抗剂方案进行胚胎植入前遗传学检测(PGT-A)周期中,非整倍体率是否存在差异?
回顾性队列研究。患者在 2017 年 11 月至 2019 年 5 月期间接受了口服地屈孕酮或 GnRH 拮抗剂的第一周期 PGT-A。使用倾向评分匹配(propensity matching)根据年龄、BMI 和 AMH 以 1:1 的比例为基础,确定一个倾向评分匹配的拮抗剂组。主要结局是整倍体胚胎的比率。
共纳入 780 个周期,其中 390 个周期接受地屈孕酮治疗,390 个周期接受 GnRH 拮抗剂方案。两组患者的基线和周期特征无显著差异。两组的取卵数、MII 卵数、胚胎活检数和胚胎检测数均无统计学差异。由于一些周期没有形成活检囊胚,仅在研究组的 262 个周期和拮抗剂组的 263 个周期进行了下一代测序检测。与我们的总体数据相似,每个胚胎活检的整倍体率没有显著差异。按年龄分层并控制 PGT-A 检测方式后,两组间无显著差异。
鉴于其有效性和已知的安全性提高,在外源性孕激素抑制排卵的卵巢刺激周期中,应考虑将其作为冷冻全部 PGT-A 周期的有效方式。