在体外受精(IVF)治疗中,最小控制卵巢刺激(COS)和体外成熟(IVM)对传统 COS 的副作用。

{"title":"在体外受精(IVF)治疗中,最小控制卵巢刺激(COS)和体外成熟(IVM)对传统 COS 的副作用。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.xfss.2024.05.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate oocyte retrieval experiences and side effects under minimally controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatment for in vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes compared with conventional COS treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A retrospective survey study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Clinical in vitro fertilization treatment center.</p></div><div><h3>Patient(s)</h3><p>Data were collected from subjects undergoing minimal COS treatment (n = 110; 600–800 IU follicle-stimulating hormone) for IVM of oocytes and conventional COS treatment for egg donation (n = 48; 1,800–2,600 IU follicle-stimulating hormone) from April 2022 to November 2023.</p></div><div><h3>Intervention(s)</h3><p>Minimal and conventional COS treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measure(s)</h3><p>The most common side effects experienced during ovarian stimulation and after oocyte pick-up, satisfaction level, and the likelihood of recommending or repeating minimal or conventional COS. Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney <em>U</em> test and χ<sup>2</sup> tests, with a significance level.</p></div><div><h3>Result(s)</h3><p>During minimal COS treatment, most subjects did not experience breast swelling (86%), pelvic or abdominal pain (76%), nausea or vomiting (96%), and bleeding (96%). After oocyte pick-up, the majority (75%) reported no pelvic or abdominal pain. The most common side effect was abdominal swelling (52%). Compared with conventional COS cycles, minimal COS subjects reported significantly less postretrieval pain, with 33% experiencing no pain (vs. 6%) and with a reduced severe level of pain (5% vs. 19%), leading to fewer subjects requiring pain medication (25% vs. 54%). Additionally, 85% of women were very satisfied with minimal stimulation treatment and would recommend or repeat the treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion(s)</h3><p>Reducing the hormonal dose for ovarian stimulation has a beneficial effect on subjects, suggesting the combination of minimal COS treatment with IVM techniques is a well-tolerated alternative for women who cannot or do not wish to undergo conventionally controlled ovarian hyperstimulation treatment.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73012,"journal":{"name":"F&S science","volume":"5 3","pages":"Pages 242-251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666335X24000296/pdfft?md5=f71ef9ef35ce3a99702aba69414b9ed3&pid=1-s2.0-S2666335X24000296-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Donor side effects experienced under minimal controlled ovarian stimulation with in vitro maturation vs. conventional controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization treatment\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.xfss.2024.05.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate oocyte retrieval experiences and side effects under minimally controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatment for in vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes compared with conventional COS treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A retrospective survey study.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Clinical in vitro fertilization treatment center.</p></div><div><h3>Patient(s)</h3><p>Data were collected from subjects undergoing minimal COS treatment (n = 110; 600–800 IU follicle-stimulating hormone) for IVM of oocytes and conventional COS treatment for egg donation (n = 48; 1,800–2,600 IU follicle-stimulating hormone) from April 2022 to November 2023.</p></div><div><h3>Intervention(s)</h3><p>Minimal and conventional COS treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measure(s)</h3><p>The most common side effects experienced during ovarian stimulation and after oocyte pick-up, satisfaction level, and the likelihood of recommending or repeating minimal or conventional COS. Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney <em>U</em> test and χ<sup>2</sup> tests, with a significance level.</p></div><div><h3>Result(s)</h3><p>During minimal COS treatment, most subjects did not experience breast swelling (86%), pelvic or abdominal pain (76%), nausea or vomiting (96%), and bleeding (96%). After oocyte pick-up, the majority (75%) reported no pelvic or abdominal pain. The most common side effect was abdominal swelling (52%). Compared with conventional COS cycles, minimal COS subjects reported significantly less postretrieval pain, with 33% experiencing no pain (vs. 6%) and with a reduced severe level of pain (5% vs. 19%), leading to fewer subjects requiring pain medication (25% vs. 54%). Additionally, 85% of women were very satisfied with minimal stimulation treatment and would recommend or repeat the treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion(s)</h3><p>Reducing the hormonal dose for ovarian stimulation has a beneficial effect on subjects, suggesting the combination of minimal COS treatment with IVM techniques is a well-tolerated alternative for women who cannot or do not wish to undergo conventionally controlled ovarian hyperstimulation treatment.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"F&S science\",\"volume\":\"5 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 242-251\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666335X24000296/pdfft?md5=f71ef9ef35ce3a99702aba69414b9ed3&pid=1-s2.0-S2666335X24000296-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"F&S science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666335X24000296\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F&S science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666335X24000296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估体外成熟(IVM)中最小控制卵巢刺激(COS)下的卵母细胞获取经验和副作用:评估体外成熟(IVM)中最小控制卵巢刺激(COS)与传统 COS 相比的卵母细胞获取经验和副作用:设计:回顾性调查研究研究对象:西班牙临床体外受精(IVF)治疗中心:数据收集自2022年4月至2023年11月接受最小COS(n=110;600-800 IU FSH)体外受精和常规COS捐卵(n=48;1800-2600 IU FSH)的受试者:主要结果指标:卵巢刺激过程中和OPU后最常见的副作用、满意度以及推荐或重复最小或常规COS的可能性。统计分析包括曼-惠特尼检验和卡方检验,显著性水平设定为 p结果:在最小 COS 过程中,大多数受试者没有出现乳房胀痛(86%)、盆腔或腹痛(76%)、恶心或呕吐(96%)和出血(96%)。取卵后,大多数受试者(75%)没有出现盆腔或腹部疼痛。最常见的副作用是腹部肿胀(52%)。与传统的 COS 周期相比,最小 COS 受试者报告的取卵后疼痛明显减少,33% 的受试者没有疼痛感(对 6%;P=0.0011),剧烈疼痛程度降低(5% 对 19%;P=0.0097),需要服用止痛药的受试者减少(25% 对 54%;P=0.0003)。此外,85%的妇女对最小刺激非常满意,并愿意推荐或重复这种治疗方法:结论:减少卵巢刺激的激素剂量对受试者有好处,这表明对于不能或不愿接受常规控制性卵巢过度刺激的妇女来说,将最小COS与IVM技术相结合是一种耐受性良好的替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Donor side effects experienced under minimal controlled ovarian stimulation with in vitro maturation vs. conventional controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization treatment

Objective

To evaluate oocyte retrieval experiences and side effects under minimally controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatment for in vitro maturation (IVM) of oocytes compared with conventional COS treatment.

Design

A retrospective survey study.

Setting

Clinical in vitro fertilization treatment center.

Patient(s)

Data were collected from subjects undergoing minimal COS treatment (n = 110; 600–800 IU follicle-stimulating hormone) for IVM of oocytes and conventional COS treatment for egg donation (n = 48; 1,800–2,600 IU follicle-stimulating hormone) from April 2022 to November 2023.

Intervention(s)

Minimal and conventional COS treatments.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

The most common side effects experienced during ovarian stimulation and after oocyte pick-up, satisfaction level, and the likelihood of recommending or repeating minimal or conventional COS. Statistical analysis included Mann-Whitney U test and χ2 tests, with a significance level.

Result(s)

During minimal COS treatment, most subjects did not experience breast swelling (86%), pelvic or abdominal pain (76%), nausea or vomiting (96%), and bleeding (96%). After oocyte pick-up, the majority (75%) reported no pelvic or abdominal pain. The most common side effect was abdominal swelling (52%). Compared with conventional COS cycles, minimal COS subjects reported significantly less postretrieval pain, with 33% experiencing no pain (vs. 6%) and with a reduced severe level of pain (5% vs. 19%), leading to fewer subjects requiring pain medication (25% vs. 54%). Additionally, 85% of women were very satisfied with minimal stimulation treatment and would recommend or repeat the treatment.

Conclusion(s)

Reducing the hormonal dose for ovarian stimulation has a beneficial effect on subjects, suggesting the combination of minimal COS treatment with IVM techniques is a well-tolerated alternative for women who cannot or do not wish to undergo conventionally controlled ovarian hyperstimulation treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
F&S science
F&S science Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Urology
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
51 days
期刊最新文献
Mitochondrial activator BGP-15 protects sperm quality against oxidative damage and improves embryo developmental competence. Receptive window might be shorter in patients with endometriosis and lesions cyclically prepare for implantation. Sphingosine 1-phosphate acts as proliferative and fibrotic cue in leiomyoma cells. Blood-based inflammatory markers in female infertility: evidence from Mendelian randomization analysis. Phthalates are detected in the follicular fluid of adolescents and oocyte donors with associated changes in the cumulus cell transcriptome.
×
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