Stimulation of the young poor responder: Comparison of the luteal estradiol/gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist priming protocol versus oral contraceptive microdose leuprolide

29Citations
Citations of this article
22Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcomes in young poor responders treated with a luteal estradiol/gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (E2/ANT) protocol versus an oral contraceptive pill microdose leuprolide protocol (OCP-MDL). Design: Retrospective cohort. Setting: Academic practice. Patient(s): Poor responders: 186 women, aged <35 years undergoing IVF with either E2/ANT or OCP-MDL protocols. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Clinical pregnancies, oocytes retrieved, cancellation rate. Result(s): Patients in the E2/ANT group had a greater gonadotropin requirement (71.9 ± 22.2 vs. 57.6 ± 25.7) and lower E2 level (1,178.6 ± 668 vs. 1,627 ± 889), yet achieved similar numbers of oocytes retrieved and fertilized, and a greater number of embryos transferred (2.3 ± 0.9 vs. 2.0 ± 1.1) with a better mean grade (2.14 ± .06 vs. 2.7 ± 1.8) compared with the OCP/MDL group. The E2/ANT group exhibited a trend toward improved implantation rates (30.5% vs. 21.1%) and ongoing pregnancy rates per started cycle: 44 out of 117 (37%) versus 17 out of 69 (25%). Conclusion(s): Poor responders aged <35 years may be treated with the aggressive E 2/ANT protocol to improve cycle outcomes. Both protocols remain viable options for this group. Adequately powered, randomized clinical comparison appears justified. © 2011 American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Published by Elsevier Inc.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Shastri, S. M., Barbieri, E., Kligman, I., Schoyer, K. D., Davis, O. K., & Rosenwaks, Z. (2011). Stimulation of the young poor responder: Comparison of the luteal estradiol/gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist priming protocol versus oral contraceptive microdose leuprolide. Fertility and Sterility, 95(2), 592–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.10.003

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free