Department of Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, Christian Medical College, 632004, Vellore, India.
Department of Biostatistics, Christian Medical College, 632004, Vellore, India.
Reprod Sci. 2023 Aug;30(8):2481-2488. doi: 10.1007/s43032-023-01196-x. Epub 2023 Feb 17.
The aim of this study is to compare the ART (assisted reproductive technology) outcomes and cancellation rates between GnRH antagonist protocol and GnRH agonist short protocol in POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategy Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) groups 3 and 4. It is a retrospective cohort study conducted in the Department of Reproductive Medicine and Surgery of a tertiary-level hospital. Women who underwent ART treatment with either GnRH antagonist or GnRH agonist short protocol with fresh embryo transfer, between January 2012 and December 2019 belonging to POSEIDON 3 and 4 groups, were included. Among the 295 women who belonged to the POSEIDON groups 3 or 4, 138 women received GnRH antagonist and 157 women received GnRH agonist short protocol. The median total dose of gonadotropin in the GnRH antagonist protocol was not significantly different from GnRH agonist short protocol [3000, IQR (2481-3675) vs. 3175, IQR (2643-3993), p = 0.370]. There was a significant difference in the duration of stimulation between the GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist short protocol [10, IQR (9-12) vs. 10, IQR (8-11), p = 0.002]. The median number of mature oocytes retrieved was significantly different in the cohort of women receiving GnRH antagonist protocol compared to GnRH agonist short protocol [3, IQR (2-5) vs. 3, IQR (2-4), p = 0.029]. There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (24% vs. 20%, p = 0.503) and cycle cancellation rate (29.7% vs. 36.3%, p = 0.290) between the GnRH antagonist and agonist short protocols respectively. Live birth rate was not significantly different between the GnRH antagonist protocol (16.7%) and GnRH agonist short protocol (14.0%) [OR 1.23, 95% CI (0.56-2.68), p = 0.604]. After adjusting for the significant confounding factors, the live birth rate was not significantly associated with the antagonist protocol compared with the short protocol [aOR 1.08, 95% CI (0.44-2.63), p = 0.870]. Though GnRH antagonist protocol results in higher mature oocyte yield when compared with GnRH agonist short protocol, it does not translate into an increase in live birth in POSEIDON groups 3 and 4.
本研究旨在比较 GnRH 拮抗剂方案和 GnRH 激动剂短方案在 POSEIDON(患者导向策略涵盖个体化卵母细胞数量)3 组和 4 组中的辅助生殖技术(ART)结局和取消率。这是一项在三级医院生殖医学与外科系进行的回顾性队列研究。纳入 2012 年 1 月至 2019 年 12 月接受新鲜胚胎移植的 GnRH 拮抗剂或 GnRH 激动剂短方案 ART 治疗的 POSEIDON 3 组和 4 组的女性。在属于 POSEIDON 3 或 4 组的 295 名女性中,138 名接受 GnRH 拮抗剂治疗,157 名接受 GnRH 激动剂短方案治疗。GnRH 拮抗剂方案的促性腺激素总剂量中位数与 GnRH 激动剂短方案无显著差异[3000,IQR(2481-3675)与 3175,IQR(2643-3993),p=0.370]。GnRH 拮抗剂与 GnRH 激动剂短方案的刺激持续时间存在显著差异[10,IQR(9-12)与 10,IQR(8-11),p=0.002]。接受 GnRH 拮抗剂方案的女性获得的成熟卵母细胞中位数明显多于 GnRH 激动剂短方案[3,IQR(2-5)与 3,IQR(2-4),p=0.029]。GnRH 拮抗剂和 GnRH 激动剂短方案的临床妊娠率(24%与 20%,p=0.503)和周期取消率(29.7%与 36.3%,p=0.290)无显著差异。GnRH 拮抗剂方案(16.7%)与 GnRH 激动剂短方案(14.0%)的活产率无显著差异[OR 1.23,95%CI(0.56-2.68),p=0.604]。在调整了显著的混杂因素后,活产率与拮抗剂方案相比,与短方案无显著相关性[aOR 1.08,95%CI(0.44-2.63),p=0.870]。尽管 GnRH 拮抗剂方案与 GnRH 激动剂短方案相比,可获得更高的成熟卵母细胞产量,但在 POSEIDON 3 组和 4 组中并未转化为活产率的提高。