2017Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & GynecologyOpen access

Comparison of GnRH antagonist and agonist mini-dose long protocols in infertile cases undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation

Hilal Akın, Serkan Kumbasar, Bulat Aytek Şık, Süleyman Salman, Muzaffer Temür, Funda Pınar Çakiroğlu, Ramazan Özyurt, Mehmet Küçükbaş

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to determine if there is a difference between multi-dose gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and long GnRH agonist protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study compared the data pertaining to patients chosen as per predetermined acceptance criteria, 113 of whom were administered multi-dose antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) while 133 were administered long agonist protocol for COH at Suleymaniye Teaching Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology. RESULTS: While cancellation rate was found to be significantly higher in antagonist group (17.7% vs 11.28%), the number of follicles > 14 mm and > 16 mm, E2 level, and the number of retrieved oocytes on the day of hCG trigger were significantly lower in the same group. However, there was no difference between fertilization rates and embryonic development rates. The pregnancy rates per transfer and per cycle were found to be 40.9% and 31.7%, respectively; in the antagonist group they were lower, though not significantly, when compared to agonist group (44.1% and 39.1%, respectively). Ongoing pregnancy rates were found to be similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: GnRH antagonist treatment protocol has a level of efficacy similar to agonist treatment protocol in terms of pregnancy results for all groups.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to determine if there is a difference between multi-dose gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and long GnRH agonist protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study compared the data pertaining to patients chosen as per predetermined acceptance criteria, 113 of whom were administered multi-dose antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) while 133 were administered long agonist protocol for COH at Suleymaniye Teaching Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology. RESULTS: While cancellation rate was found to be significantly higher in antagonist group (17.7% vs 11.28%), the number of follicles > 14 mm and > 16 mm, E2 level, and the number of retrieved oocytes on the day of hCG trigger were significantly lower in the same group. However, there was no difference between fertilization rates and embryonic development rates. The pregnancy rates per transfer and per cycle were found to be 40.9% and 31.7%, respectively; in the antagonist group they were lower, though not significantly, when compared to agonist group (44.1% and 39.1%, respectively). Ongoing pregnancy rates were found to be similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: GnRH antagonist treatment protocol has a level of efficacy similar to agonist treatment protocol in terms of pregnancy results for all groups.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

AIM: The purpose of the present study was to determine if there is a difference between multi-dose gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and long GnRH agonist protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study compared the data pertaining to patients chosen as per predetermined acceptance criteria, 113 of whom were administered multi-dose antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) while 133 were administered long agonist protocol for COH at Suleymaniye Teaching Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology. RESULTS: While cancellation rate was found to be significantly higher in antagonist group (17.7% vs 11.28%), the number of follicles > 14 mm and > 16 mm, E2 level, and the number of retrieved oocytes on the day of hCG trigger were significantly lower in the same group. However, there was no difference between fertilization rates and embryonic development rates. The pregnancy rates per transfer and per cycle were found to be 40.9% and 31.7%, respectively; in the antagonist group they were lower, though not significantly, when compared to agonist group (44.1% and 39.1%, respectively). Ongoing pregnancy rates were found to be similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: GnRH antagonist treatment protocol has a level of efficacy similar to agonist treatment protocol in terms of pregnancy results for all groups.

Key concepts: Medicine, Agonist, Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, Antagonist, Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, Gynecology, Internal medicine, Infertility

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of GnRH antagonist and agonist mini-dose long protocols in infertile cases undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation — Research Paper | ScholarLens