Does unplanned agonist-stop protocol rescue the intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle?: a randomized controlled study

Yasser Saad El-Kassar, Hassan Ali El-Maghraby, Ahmed Samy El-Agwany
{"title":"Does unplanned agonist-stop protocol rescue the intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle?: a randomized controlled study","authors":"Yasser Saad El-Kassar,&nbsp;Hassan Ali El-Maghraby,&nbsp;Ahmed Samy El-Agwany","doi":"10.1016/j.recli.2015.11.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of stopping the agonist with the first follow up visit when the initial response was poor in cases undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection, comparing this to the conventional continuation of the agonist.</p></div><div><h3>Methodology</h3><p>A prospective single blinded study was conducted on 50 infertile cases who were planned to have intracytoplasmic sperm injection by long protocol in infertility unit of El-Shatby Maternity University Hospital in the period between May 2011 and January 2013 and these patients had poor response on day 6 of stimulation (serum estradiol (E2) less than 100<!--> <!-->pg/ml and 5 or less follicles developed). They were randomly allocated by closed envelope method into two groups, (I) 30 patients to whom we stopped the agonist and continued stimulation and (II) 20 patients to whom we continued the agonist together with stimulation.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Group II had statistically higher days of stimulation than group I (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.009). The number of metaphase II oocytes did not show statistical significant difference between the two groups (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.418). The mean of number embryos replaced were statistically higher in group II than group I (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.025). Pregnancy rate showed no statistical significant differences between the two studied groups (<em>p</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.466).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>There was no difference between stopping the agonist or continuing it when the initial response was poor on first follow up visit in cases undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.</p></div><div><h3>Recommendations</h3><p>Alternative measures should be looked for, to improve results of intracytoplasmic sperm injection when initial response is poor.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101073,"journal":{"name":"Reprodu??o & Climatério","volume":"30 3","pages":"Pages 121-126"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.recli.2015.11.006","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reprodu??o & Climatério","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413208715000655","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of stopping the agonist with the first follow up visit when the initial response was poor in cases undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection, comparing this to the conventional continuation of the agonist.

Methodology

A prospective single blinded study was conducted on 50 infertile cases who were planned to have intracytoplasmic sperm injection by long protocol in infertility unit of El-Shatby Maternity University Hospital in the period between May 2011 and January 2013 and these patients had poor response on day 6 of stimulation (serum estradiol (E2) less than 100 pg/ml and 5 or less follicles developed). They were randomly allocated by closed envelope method into two groups, (I) 30 patients to whom we stopped the agonist and continued stimulation and (II) 20 patients to whom we continued the agonist together with stimulation.

Results

Group II had statistically higher days of stimulation than group I (p = 0.009). The number of metaphase II oocytes did not show statistical significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.418). The mean of number embryos replaced were statistically higher in group II than group I (p = 0.025). Pregnancy rate showed no statistical significant differences between the two studied groups (p = 0.466).

Conclusions

There was no difference between stopping the agonist or continuing it when the initial response was poor on first follow up visit in cases undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Recommendations

Alternative measures should be looked for, to improve results of intracytoplasmic sperm injection when initial response is poor.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
计划外激动剂停止方案能否挽救胞浆内单精子注射周期?随机对照研究
目的本研究的目的是评估在接受卵胞浆内单精子注射的病例中,当初始反应较差时,在第一次随访时停止激动剂的效果,并将其与常规继续使用激动剂进行比较。方法对2011年5月至2013年1月在El-Shatby妇产大学医院不孕科计划接受长期方案卵浆内单精子注射的50例不孕症患者进行前瞻性单盲研究,这些患者在刺激第6天反应不佳(血清雌二醇(E2)低于100 pg/ml,卵泡发育不超过5个)。采用封闭包络法随机分为两组,(I) 30例患者停用激动剂并继续刺激,(II) 20例患者继续使用激动剂并继续刺激。结果II组的刺激天数明显高于I组(p = 0.009)。两组中期卵母细胞数量差异无统计学意义(p = 0.418)。替换胚数的平均值ⅱ组高于ⅰ组(p = 0.025)。两组妊娠率差异无统计学意义(p = 0.466)。结论对于接受卵胞浆内单精子注射的患者,在第一次随访时初始反应较差时,停用或继续使用激动剂无显著差异。建议在初始反应较差的情况下,应寻求其他措施来改善卵胞浆内单精子注射的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Alteração menstrual e qualidade de vida em professoras da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande, Brasil Outcomes of GnRH agonist triggering in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review Perfil diferencial de transcritos em endométrio eutópico de mulheres inférteis com endometriose e controles durante a janela de implantação Dieta isenta de glúten e risco de desfechos gestacionais desfavoráveis em mulheres com doença celíaca: revisão sistemática Male infertility profile in an assisted human reproduction clinic from the south of Santa Catarina, Brazil, from 2012 to 2014
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1