Literature DB >> 25116191

Duration of luteal support after IVF is important, so why is there no consistency in practice? The results of a dynamic survey of practice in the United Kingdom.

Richard Russell1, Charles Kingsland, Zarko Alfirevic, Rafet Gazvani.   

Abstract

Luteal support is considered as an essential component of IVF treatment following ovarian stimulation and embryo transfer. Several studies have consistently demonstrated a benefit of luteal support compared with no treatment and whilst a number of preparations are available, no product has been demonstrated as superior. There is an emerging body of evidence which suggests that extension of luteal support beyond biochemical pregnancy does not confer a benefit in terms of successful pregnancy outcome. We performed two surveys separated by 5 years of practice evolution, with the latter reporting on the use of luteal support in all IVF clinics in the UK. All clinics reported utilising luteal support with the majority favouring the use of Cyclogest 400 mg twice daily. In contrast, there was no consensus on the optimal duration of luteal support. Whilst 24% of clinics withdrew luteal support at biochemical confirmation of pregnancy, 40% continued treatment until 12 weeks gestation. Several clinics even extended luteal support beyond 12 weeks gestation. We observed no difference in practice based on the size of the IVF unit or treatment funding source. Although there was some change in practice between surveys in many clinics, there was no uniformity in the direction of change.

Entities:  

Keywords:  IVF; luteal phase deficiency; luteal support; progesterone

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25116191     DOI: 10.3109/14647273.2014.921337

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Fertil (Camb)        ISSN: 1464-7273            Impact factor:   2.767


  6 in total

1.  A questionnaire-based audit to assess overall experience and convenience among patients using vaginal progesterone tablets (Lutigest®) for luteal phase support during IVF treatment.

Authors:  Polly Heine; Laura Sellar; Sue Whitten; Priti Bajaj
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2017-12-08

2.  Early stop of progesterone supplementation after confirmation of pregnancy in IVF/ICSI fresh embryo transfer cycles of poor responders does not affect pregnancy outcome.

Authors:  Song-Po Pan; Kuang-Han Chao; Chu-Chun Huang; Ming-Yih Wu; Mei-Jou Chen; Chin-Hao Chang; Jehn-Hsiahn Yang; Yu-Shih Yang; Shee-Uan Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Efficacy, safety and tolerability of progesterone vaginal pessaries versus progesterone vaginal gel for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilisation: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Helen Saunders; Cass Khan; Thomas D'Hooghe; Thora Björg Magnúsdóttir; Ingrid Klingmann; Sigrún Hrafnsdóttir
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-02-29       Impact factor: 6.918

4.  A 10-year follow-up on the practice of luteal phase support using worldwide web-based surveys.

Authors:  Gon Shoham; Milton Leong; Ariel Weissman
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2021-01-26       Impact factor: 5.211

5.  The inadequate corpus luteum.

Authors:  W Colin Duncan
Journal:  Reprod Fertil       Date:  2021-02-26

Review 6.  Individualized luteal phase support after fresh embryo transfer: unanswered questions, a review.

Authors:  Jing Zhao; Jie Hao; Yanping Li
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 3.223

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.