Suppr超能文献

在接受控制性卵巢刺激的高反应者(HR)患者中,孕酮预处理卵巢刺激(PPOS)与克罗米芬预处理卵巢刺激(CPOS)的比较。一项随机对照试验。

Progesterone Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) vs. clomiphene Primed Ovarian Stimulation (CPOS) in high responder (HR) patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation. A Randomised Control trial.

作者信息

Chaitanya Krishna Mantravadi, Rao Durga Gedela, Gambhir Isha

机构信息

Department of Embryology, Oasis India. Banjara Hills Road No 2, Hyderabad - 500034, India.

Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, Oasis India, Banjara Hills Road No 2, Hyderabad - 500034, India.

出版信息

JBRA Assist Reprod. 2025 Mar 12;29(1):21-26. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20240083.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of PPOS and CPOS in high-responder patients undergoing COS for IVF.

METHODS

This one-year prospective, randomized, controlled trial included 86 high-responder patients. They were divided into PPOS (n=44) and CPOS (n=42). Both groups underwent COS with hormonal injections, and various parameters, such as LH surge, cycle cancellation rates, birth rates, implantation rates, and more, were measured and compared.

RESULTS

The study revealed that LH surge occurred in 2.3% of the PPOS group and 2.5% of the CPOS group, with no significant difference (p=0.9). The cycle cancellation rates were 9.1% for PPOS and 10% for CPOS. Birth rates were 57% for PPOS and 54% for CPOS. Implantation rates were 45% for PPOS and 49% for CPOS. There was no significant difference in the duration of stimulation (PPOS: 11.30±1.96 days, CPOS: 11.41±2.02 days, p=0.807) or the total FSH used (PPOS: 2888.95±791.80IU, CPOS: 2808±834.52IU, p=0.655). The PPOS group had a mean of 19.58±8.07 retrieved oocytes, while the CPOS group had a mean of 21.87±10.02, showing no significant difference (p=0.807). Similarly, there was no significant difference (p=0.376) in the number of mature (MII) oocytes between the PPOS group (15.67±6.23) and the CPOS group (17.08±7.96). Post-trigger LH levels were significantly lower in the PPOS group (PPOS: 49.68±27.54IU/L, CPOS: 71.83±43.43IU/L, p-value 0.007), indicating LH surge suppression. Neither group reported cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

CONCLUSIONS

PPOS and CPOS offer similar outcomes in high-responder individuals undergoing COS for IVF, except for lower post-trigger LH levels in the PPOS group. Importantly, neither group experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

摘要

目的

比较PPOS方案与CPOS方案在体外受精(IVF)的高反应患者中进行控制性卵巢刺激(COS)时的疗效和安全性。

方法

这项为期一年的前瞻性、随机、对照试验纳入了86例高反应患者。他们被分为PPOS组(n = 44)和CPOS组(n = 42)。两组均接受激素注射进行COS,并测量和比较了各种参数,如促黄体生成素(LH)峰、周期取消率、出生率、着床率等。

结果

研究显示,PPOS组中2.3%出现LH峰,CPOS组中2.5%出现LH峰,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.9)。PPOS组的周期取消率为9.1%,CPOS组为10%。PPOS组的出生率为57%,CPOS组为54%。PPOS组的着床率为45%,CPOS组为49%。刺激持续时间(PPOS组:11.30±1.96天,CPOS组:11.41±2.02天,p = 0.807)或使用的总促卵泡生成素(FSH)量(PPOS组:2888.95±791.80IU,CPOS组:2808±834.52IU,p = 0.655)无显著差异。PPOS组平均获取的卵母细胞数为19.58±8.07个,而CPOS组平均为21.87±10.02个,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.807)。同样,PPOS组(15.67±6.23)和CPOS组(17.08±7.96)之间成熟(MII)卵母细胞数量也无显著差异(p = 0.376)。触发后PPOS组的LH水平显著较低(PPOS组:49.68±27.54IU/L,CPOS组:71.83±43.43IU/L,p值0.007),表明对LH峰有抑制作用。两组均未报告卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)病例。

结论

在接受IVF的COS的高反应个体中,PPOS方案和CPOS方案的结果相似,除了PPOS组触发后的LH水平较低。重要的是,两组均未发生卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9296/11867250/09da1098a9cf/jbra-29-01-0021-g01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验