PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of IVF treatment after pituitary suppression with two different oral contraceptives (OCs). METHODS: 65 patients who received IVF treatment was classified into 2 groups based on the difference of OCs they used for pituitary suppression before ovarian hyperstimulation. Group 1 included 36 patients who received monophasic OCs. Group 2 included 29 patients who received triphastic OCs. Both groups received the OCs from the 5th day of the cycle for consecutive 21 days. The hormone profiles after OCs and clinical outcome of IVF treatment were compared between two groups. Two-sample t-tests and X2 tests were used for statistical analyses. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean age and basal hormone profiles were comparable between two groups. After ovulation suppression with different OCs, the day 2 FSH and LH value revealed statistically significant difference between two groups(4.2+/-1.8 vs 6.0+/-2.6; 2.7+/-2.0 vs 4.2+/-3.3 respectively). The numbers of oocyte per retrieval and fertilization rate were comparable between two groups, but higher quality embryos as revealed by the cleavage speed were noted in the triphastic OCs group. Although statistically not significant, higher implantation rate and pregnancy rate were also noted in the triphastic OCs group. CONCLUSIONS: Different OCs for pituitary suppression can result in different hormone profiles. Ovulation induction in IVF treatment should be individualized according to these hormone changes to achieve the optimal clinical outcome. Triphastic OCs exceeds monophastic OCs in producing good quality embryo in IVF-ET treatment.
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcome of IVF treatment after pituitary suppression with two different oral contraceptives (OCs). METHODS: 65 patients who received IVF treatment was classified into 2 groups based on the difference of OCs they used for pituitary suppression before ovarian hyperstimulation. Group 1 included 36 patients who received monophasic OCs. Group 2 included 29 patients who received triphastic OCs. Both groups received the OCs from the 5th day of the cycle for consecutive 21 days. The hormone profiles after OCs and clinical outcome of IVF treatment were compared between two groups. Two-sample t-tests and X2 tests were used for statistical analyses. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The mean age and basal hormone profiles were comparable between two groups. After ovulation suppression with different OCs, the day 2 FSH and LH value revealed statistically significant difference between two groups(4.2+/-1.8 vs 6.0+/-2.6; 2.7+/-2.0 vs 4.2+/-3.3 respectively). The numbers of oocyte per retrieval and fertilization rate were comparable between two groups, but higher quality embryos as revealed by the cleavage speed were noted in the triphastic OCs group. Although statistically not significant, higher implantation rate and pregnancy rate were also noted in the triphastic OCs group. CONCLUSIONS: Different OCs for pituitary suppression can result in different hormone profiles. Ovulation induction in IVF treatment should be individualized according to these hormone changes to achieve the optimal clinical outcome. Triphastic OCs exceeds monophastic OCs in producing good quality embryo in IVF-ET treatment.
Authors: S Mashiach; J Dor; M Goldenberg; J Shalev; J Blankstein; E Rudak; Z Shoam; Z Finelt; L Nebel; B Goldman Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 1988 Impact factor: 5.691