GnRH agonist trigger in focus: does protocol choice between PPOS and antagonist strategies affect outcomes?

GnRH激动剂触发策略研究重点:PPOS和拮抗剂策略之间的方案选择是否会影响结果?

阅读:1

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the GnRHa trigger in the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols when using a GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study conducted at Bahçeci Fulya IVF Center (January 2022-January 2024) included 802 patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with a starting dose of 300 IU gonadotropins using either a GnRH antagonist (n = 372) or PPOS protocol (n = 430), followed by a GnRHa trigger. The primary outcome was oocyte yield; secondary outcomes included pregnancy rates following the initial frozen embryo transfer (FET). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics, including female age, BMI, and infertility duration, were comparable between groups. Although PPOS was associated with a shorter stimulation duration [10 (9-11) vs. 10 (10-11) days, p = 0.002], lower progesterone levels on trigger day [1.3 (0.74-1.48) vs. 1.5 (0.83-1.63) ng/ml, p = 0.002], and higher LH levels [4 (1.89-5.2) vs. 3.3 (1.4-4.1) IU, p < 0.001], oocyte yield and embryological outcomes were similar (p > 0.05 for all). Clinical pregnancy rates [63.6% vs. 63.8%, p = 0.95] and live birth rates [51.7% vs. 52.2%, p = 0.87] were also comparable. Regression analysis identified embryo quality (p = 0.003), but not stimulation protocol (p = 0.766), as a significant predictor of live birth. CONCLUSION: PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols provide similar oocyte yield and live birth rates following GnRHa trigger. These findings indicate that progestin use in PPOS is not associated with inferior clinical outcomes in the setting of GnRHa trigger; however, the underlying mechanisms and long-term efficacy require further investigations.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。