Literature DB >> 32672129

Effectiveness of the flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol compared to the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in women with decreased ovarian reserve.

Engin Turkgeldi1, Sule Yildiz1, Sebile Guler Cekic1, Bahar Shakerian1,2, Ipek Keles1, Baris Ata1,3.   

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the effectiveness of the new flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) protocol with the flexible gonadotropin-releasing-hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol in women with decreased ovarian reserve (DOR). Twenty-seven women who underwent fPPOS and 54 age-matched women who received GnRH-ant for pituitary suppression were included in the study. All women had DOR and underwent oocyte cryopreservation. Three-hundred IU/day FSH was started on cycle day 2-3 and 0.25 mg/day GnRH-ant or 10 mg/day medroxyprogesterone acetate was started when the leading follicle reached 14 mm or serum oestradiol level was ≥200 ng/mL. The median duration of stimulation, day of commencing pituitary suppression and duration of suppression were similar in both groups, with 8, 5, and 5 days, respectively. The median number of cumulus-oophorous complexes (4.0 vs 5.5), metaphase-two oocytes (3 vs 4), the total number of oocytes cryopreserved (3.0 vs 4.5), and oocyte maturation rates (0.67 vs 0.70) were similar between the fPPOS and GnRH-ant groups, respectively. There was one case of premature ovulation in the fPPOS group and none in the GnRH-ant group (p = 0.91). In conclusion, fPPOS may be used in women with DOR without compromising the number of oocytes retrieved and seems a viable alternative to the flexible GnRH-ant protocol.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS); diminished ovarian reserve (DOR); medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA); oocyte cryopreservation; ovarian stimulation; progesterone

Year:  2020        PMID: 32672129     DOI: 10.1080/14647273.2020.1794060

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


  5 in total

1.  Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol for Patients With Endometrioma.

Authors:  Ai-Min Yang; Teng-Fei Feng; Yan Han; Zhi-Ming Zhao; Wei Wang; Yi-Zhuo Wang; Xiao-Qi Zuo; Xiuhua Xu; Bao-Jun Shi; Lipeng Li; Gui-Min Hao; Na Cui
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 6.055

2.  Outcomes of a GnRH Agonist Trigger Following a GnRH Antagonist or Flexible Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Cycle.

Authors:  Erkan Kalafat; Engin Turkgeldi; Sule Yıldız; Merve Dizdar; Ipek Keles; Baris Ata
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 6.055

3.  The Comparison of Fixed and Flexible Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation on Mature Oocyte Yield in Women at Risk of Premature Ovarian Insufficiency.

Authors:  Erkan Kalafat; Merve Dizdar; Engin Turkgeldi; Sule Yildiz; Ipek Keles; Baris Ata
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-02-03       Impact factor: 5.555

4.  Comparison of the Cumulative Live Birth Rates of Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation and Flexible GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Patients With Low Prognosis.

Authors:  Mingze Du; Junwei Zhang; Zhen Li; Xinmi Liu; Jing Li; Wenxia Liu; Yichun Guan
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-09-13       Impact factor: 5.555

5.  The efficacy of dydrogesterone use to suppress premature luteinizing hormone surge on cycle outcomes in controlled ovarian stimulation

Authors:  Gülşen Doğan Durdağ; Gizem Bektaş; Esengül Türkyılmaz; Halime Göktepe; Meltem Sönmezer; Yavuz Emre Şükür; Batuhan Özmen; Cem Atabekoğlu; Bülent Berker; Ruşen Aytaç; Murat Sönmezer
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2021-01-04
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.