Tahereh Madani1, Mahnaz Ashrafi, Ladan Mohammadi Yeganeh. 1. Department of Endocrinology and Female Infertility, Royan Institute for Reproductive Biomedicine, ACECR, Tehran, Iran. tmadani @royaninstitute.org
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of different stimulation protocols on pregnancy outcomes in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study to compare the efficacy of four different protocols including gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist (long, short and miniflare) and GnRH antagonist on pregnancy outcomes in poor responders. This investigation was performed on 566 poor respond patients who were candidates for IVF. Main outcome measures included the total number of oocytes and mature oocytes retrieved, pregnancy rates, implantation and overall cancellation rates which were compared between four mentioned groups. RESULTS: Number of follicles >18 mm on hCG day were significantly higher in GnRH-a long versus GnRH antagonist, GnRH-a short and GnRH-a miniflare protocols. The mean number of oocytes and mature oocytes retrieved were significantly higher in GnRH-a long versus miniflare (4.7 ± 3.05 versus 3.26 ± 2.9 and 3.69 ± 3.1 versus 2.65 ± 2.2, respectively). There were no significant differences in implantation, pregnancy and overall cancellation rates between four groups. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that the application of four different protocols in poor respond patients seem to have similar efficacy in improving clinical outcomes such as implantation, pregnancy rates and cancellation rate even though GnRH-a long protocol yielded more retrieved oocytes and mature oocytes compared to GnRH-a miniflare protocol.
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of different stimulation protocols on pregnancy outcomes in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study to compare the efficacy of four different protocols including gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist (long, short and miniflare) and GnRH antagonist on pregnancy outcomes in poor responders. This investigation was performed on 566 poor respond patients who were candidates for IVF. Main outcome measures included the total number of oocytes and mature oocytes retrieved, pregnancy rates, implantation and overall cancellation rates which were compared between four mentioned groups. RESULTS: Number of follicles >18 mm on hCG day were significantly higher in GnRH-a long versus GnRH antagonist, GnRH-a short and GnRH-a miniflare protocols. The mean number of oocytes and mature oocytes retrieved were significantly higher in GnRH-a long versus miniflare (4.7 ± 3.05 versus 3.26 ± 2.9 and 3.69 ± 3.1 versus 2.65 ± 2.2, respectively). There were no significant differences in implantation, pregnancy and overall cancellation rates between four groups. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that the application of four different protocols in poor respond patients seem to have similar efficacy in improving clinical outcomes such as implantation, pregnancy rates and cancellation rate even though GnRH-a long protocol yielded more retrieved oocytes and mature oocytes compared to GnRH-a miniflare protocol.