A randomized controlled trial to compare the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer following the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol vs. the antagonist protocol in women with an anticipated high ovarian response

被引:1
|
作者
Chen, Zhi Qin [1 ]
Ai, Ai [1 ]
Zhang, Yuan [1 ]
Li, He [2 ]
Wang, Jing Yun [1 ]
Wang, Lu [1 ]
Ng, Ernest Hung Yu [3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Tongji Univ, Shanghai Matern & Infant Hosp 1, Ctr Assisted Reprod, Sch Med, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[2] Fudan Univ, Obstet & Gynecol Hosp, Shanghai Ji Ai Genet & IVF Inst, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Hong Kong, Li Ka Shing Fac Med, Sch Clin Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[4] Univ Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hosp, Li Ka Shing Fac Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol,Sch Clin Med,Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
关键词
MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE; PITUITARY SUPPRESSION; LH SURGE; IVF; DYDROGESTERONE;
D O I
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.01.027
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective: To compare the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer (FET) after ovarian stimulation by the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol vs. the antagonist protocol in women with an anticipated high ovarian response who were undergoing in vitro fertilization. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Setting: A tertiary assisted reproduction center. Patients: Women with infertility aged <43 years undergoing the first in vitro fertilization cycle and having antral follicle count of >15. Interventions: Medroxyprogesterone 10 mg daily was given from the start of ovarian stimulation until the day of ovulation trigger in the PPOS protocol. In the antagonist protocol, an antagonist 0.25 mg daily was given from the sixth day of ovarian stimulation until the day of ovulation trigger. Blinding was not possible for women or physicians but the biostatistician was blinded to the group assignment. Main Outcome Measure: Live birth rate of the first FET cycle. Results: A total of 784 women were recruited from June 2020 and October 2021 and assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: PPOS group (n = 392) and antagonist group (n = 392). Embryo transfer was either cancelled or postponed in 62 women (62/392, 15.8%) in the PPOS group and 65 (65/392, 16.6%) in the antagonist group because of no transferable embryos or no FET within 6 months after randomization. The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics and the numbers of oocytes obtained or fertilized, cleaving embryos, good-quality embryos at day 3, blastocysts developed, and embryos or blastocysts frozen. There was no statistically significant difference in the live birth rate of the first FET cycle between the PPOS and antagonist groups on the basis of both the intention-to-treat analysis (37.5.0% [147/392] vs. 32.7% [128/392]; relative risk, 1.148 [95% confidence interval, 0.949-1.390]) and per-protocol analysis (44.5% [147/330] vs. 39.1% [128/327]; relative risk, 1.138 [95% confidence interval, 0.950-1.364]). Both groups showed comparable clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and cumulative live birth rates. Conclusion: The live birth rates of the first FET following the PPOS and antagonist protocols were comparable in women with an anticipated high ovarian response.
引用
收藏
页码:937 / 945
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A randomized trial to compare the live birth rate following the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus the antagonist protocol in women with anticipated high ovarian responses
    Ng, E.
    Chen, Z. Q.
    Zhang, Y.
    Li, H.
    Wang, J. Y.
    Wang, L.
    Ai, A.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2024, 39
  • [2] Cumulative live birth rate of in vitro fertilization cycle via progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in infertile women with normal ovarian reserve: an open-label, randomized controlled trial
    Ye, Hongjuan
    Shi, Liya
    Quan, Xinxin
    Hou, Min
    Ma, Huilan
    Xue, Songguo
    Yu, Zhao
    Chen, Qiuju
    Sun, Lihua
    HUMAN FERTILITY, 2024, 27 (01)
  • [3] Outcome of Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol vs. ultra-long protocol in patients with a first IVF/ICSI cycle: a randomized clinical trail
    Qianwen, X.
    Yanping, K.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2018, 33 : 301 - 301
  • [4] Comparison of cumulative live birth rates between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in different populations
    Zhou, Ruiqiong
    Dong, Mei
    Huang, Li
    Wang, Songlu
    Fan, Lin
    Liang, Xiangping
    Zhang, Xiqian
    Liu, Fenghua
    FRONTIERS IN ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2023, 14
  • [5] Comparison of the pregnancy outcomes of progestin-primed vs. antagonist ovarian stimulation in patients with poor ovarian response: a retrospective study
    Shi, Zuoping
    Zhao, Wenhui
    Wu, Xueqing
    Bi, Xingyu
    GYNECOLOGICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY, 2024, 40 (01)
  • [6] Response to: Cumulative live birth rate following progestin-primed ovarian stimulation: controversial results with own and donated oocytes
    Ata, Baris
    Kalafat, Erkan
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2024, 48 (05)
  • [7] Comparison of the flexible Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation with the GnRH antagonist protocol in predicted suboptimal responders: a freeze-all randomized controlled trial
    Shi, Z.
    Cai, H.
    Zhang, D.
    Li, F.
    Shi, J.
    Tian, L.
    HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2024, 39 : I5 - I5
  • [8] Cumulative live birth rate following progestin-primed ovarian stimulation: controversial results with own and donated oocytes
    Giles, Juan
    Bosch, Ernesto
    REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE, 2024, 48 (05)
  • [9] Flexible GnRH Antagonist Protocol versus Progestin-primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) Protocol in Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Ovarian Response
    Xiao, Zhuo-ni
    Peng, Jia-li
    Yang, Jing
    Xu, Wang-ming
    CURRENT MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2019, 39 (03) : 431 - 436
  • [10] Flexible GnRH Antagonist Protocol versus Progestin-primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) Protocol in Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Ovarian Response
    Zhuo-ni Xiao
    Jia-li Peng
    Jing Yang
    Wang-ming Xu
    Current Medical Science, 2019, 39 : 431 - 436