Francisca Martínez1, Elisabet Clúa2, Sandra García2, Buenaventura Coroleu2, Nikolaos P Polyzos2, Pedro N Barri2. 1. Servicio de Medicina de la Reproducción, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitario Dexeus, Calle Sabino Arana, 5-19 - Planta 1, Barcelona 08028, Spain. Electronic address: pacmar@dexeus.com. 2. Servicio de Medicina de la Reproducción, Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproduction, Hospital Universitario Dexeus, Calle Sabino Arana, 5-19 - Planta 1, Barcelona 08028, Spain.
Abstract
RESEARCH QUESTION: Is live birth rate among recipients of donated oocytes different depending on mode of treatment for endogenous LH suppression administered to oocyte donors during ovarian stimulation? DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of recipients of freshly donated oocytes from oocyte donors who underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins at a private, university-based infertility clinic between January 2017 and March 2018. For endogenous LH suppression, oocyte donors received daily injections of gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix (GNR) or daily oral 75 µg desogestrel (DSG) until triggering with 0.2 mg of triptorelin. Three hundred recipient cycles of freshly donated oocytes were included: 154 from oocyte donor DSG cycles and 146 from oocyte donor GNR cycles. RESULTS: Comparison of basal characteristics of oocyte donors showed no differences in mean age, anti-Müllerian hormone levels and body mass index between the oocyte donor DSG p and oocyte donor GNR groups, respectively. Similarly, no differences were observed among mean age of recipients and body mass index. Out of 300 fresh embryo transfers, 190 clinical pregnancies (63.3%) and 150 live births (50%) were achieved. Per embryo transfer clinical pregnancy rate was 66.2% in the DSG recipient group and 60.3% in the GNR recipient group (P = 0.338). Live birth rates were not significantly different between both groups (48.7% among DSG recipient group and 51.4% among GNR recipient group; P = 0.729). CONCLUSIONS: Live birth rate among recipients of donated oocytes does not differ depending on the mode of treatment for endogenous LH suppression administered to the oocyte donors during ovarian stimulation. This information is reassuring and will be of interest to teams using these kinds of protocols, although further research is needed.
RESEARCH QUESTION: Is live birth rate among recipients of donated oocytes different depending on mode of treatment for endogenous LH suppression administered to oocyte donors during ovarian stimulation? DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of recipients of freshly donated oocytes from oocyte donors who underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins at a private, university-based infertility clinic between January 2017 and March 2018. For endogenous LH suppression, oocyte donors received daily injections of gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix (GNR) or daily oral 75 µg desogestrel (DSG) until triggering with 0.2 mg of triptorelin. Three hundred recipient cycles of freshly donated oocytes were included: 154 from oocyte donor DSG cycles and 146 from oocyte donor GNR cycles. RESULTS: Comparison of basal characteristics of oocyte donors showed no differences in mean age, anti-Müllerian hormone levels and body mass index between the oocyte donor DSG p and oocyte donor GNR groups, respectively. Similarly, no differences were observed among mean age of recipients and body mass index. Out of 300 fresh embryo transfers, 190 clinical pregnancies (63.3%) and 150 live births (50%) were achieved. Per embryo transfer clinical pregnancy rate was 66.2% in the DSG recipient group and 60.3% in the GNR recipient group (P = 0.338). Live birth rates were not significantly different between both groups (48.7% among DSG recipient group and 51.4% among GNR recipient group; P = 0.729). CONCLUSIONS: Live birth rate among recipients of donated oocytes does not differ depending on the mode of treatment for endogenous LH suppression administered to the oocyte donors during ovarian stimulation. This information is reassuring and will be of interest to teams using these kinds of protocols, although further research is needed.