双触发与人绒毛膜促性腺激素触发对囊胚质量和累积活产率的影响。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 GENETICS & HEREDITY Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Pub Date : 2024-11-16 DOI:10.1007/s10815-024-03293-5
Zining He, Yalong Liu, Ning Huang, Xintong Liu, Lin Zeng, Ying Lian, Rong Li, Hongbin Chi
{"title":"双触发与人绒毛膜促性腺激素触发对囊胚质量和累积活产率的影响。","authors":"Zining He, Yalong Liu, Ning Huang, Xintong Liu, Lin Zeng, Ying Lian, Rong Li, Hongbin Chi","doi":"10.1007/s10815-024-03293-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the difference in the number of euploid blastocysts and cumulative live birth rate (LBR) between dual and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) triggers in poor and normal ovarian responders undergoing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was enrolled from July 2018 to December 2021 and followed up until June 2024 at a single reproductive medical center. Overall, 1040 in vitro fertilization (IVF)-PGT and 784 frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles were assessed. Dual (triptorelin acetate 0.2 mg and recombinant hCG [rhCG] 250 µg) or hCG (rhCG 250 µg) trigger was used for oocyte maturation in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and PGT cycles. We assessed the embryo outcomes and FET cumulative pregnancy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of oocytes retrieved (10.17 ± 5.22 vs 10.27 ± 5.14, P = 0.789), MII oocytes (8.24 ± 4.26 vs 8.28 ± 4.05, P = 0.888), blastocysts (2.16 ± 1.50 vs 2.12 ± 1.49, P = 0.729), euploid blastocysts (1.06 ± 1.14 vs 1.09 ± 1.23, P = 0.726), and the rate of cumulative LBR (24.9% vs 24.9%, P = 1.000) in the dual trigger group were comparable with those in the hCG group. The trigger method was not correlated with higher LBR based on logistic regression analysis (odds ratio[OR] = 1.040 [0.778-1.392], P = 0.790).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For poor and normal ovarian responders, the dual trigger, compared with the hCG trigger, did not improve the PGT embryo outcomes and FET cumulative pregnancy outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":15246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dual trigger versus human chorionic gonadotropin trigger for blastocyst quality and cumulative live birth.\",\"authors\":\"Zining He, Yalong Liu, Ning Huang, Xintong Liu, Lin Zeng, Ying Lian, Rong Li, Hongbin Chi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10815-024-03293-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the difference in the number of euploid blastocysts and cumulative live birth rate (LBR) between dual and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) triggers in poor and normal ovarian responders undergoing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was enrolled from July 2018 to December 2021 and followed up until June 2024 at a single reproductive medical center. Overall, 1040 in vitro fertilization (IVF)-PGT and 784 frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles were assessed. Dual (triptorelin acetate 0.2 mg and recombinant hCG [rhCG] 250 µg) or hCG (rhCG 250 µg) trigger was used for oocyte maturation in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and PGT cycles. We assessed the embryo outcomes and FET cumulative pregnancy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The number of oocytes retrieved (10.17 ± 5.22 vs 10.27 ± 5.14, P = 0.789), MII oocytes (8.24 ± 4.26 vs 8.28 ± 4.05, P = 0.888), blastocysts (2.16 ± 1.50 vs 2.12 ± 1.49, P = 0.729), euploid blastocysts (1.06 ± 1.14 vs 1.09 ± 1.23, P = 0.726), and the rate of cumulative LBR (24.9% vs 24.9%, P = 1.000) in the dual trigger group were comparable with those in the hCG group. The trigger method was not correlated with higher LBR based on logistic regression analysis (odds ratio[OR] = 1.040 [0.778-1.392], P = 0.790).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For poor and normal ovarian responders, the dual trigger, compared with the hCG trigger, did not improve the PGT embryo outcomes and FET cumulative pregnancy outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15246,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03293-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GENETICS & HEREDITY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03293-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GENETICS & HEREDITY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估接受胚胎植入前遗传学检测(PGT)周期的卵巢反应不良者和卵巢反应正常者在双绒毛膜促性腺激素(hCG)触发和人绒毛膜促性腺激素(hCG)触发之间的高倍囊胚数量和累积活产率(LBR)差异:这项回顾性队列研究于 2018 年 7 月至 2021 年 12 月在一家生殖医疗中心进行了注册,并随访至 2024 年 6 月。总共评估了 1040 个体外受精(IVF)-PGT 周期和 784 个冷冻-解冻胚胎移植(FET)周期。在促性腺激素释放激素拮抗剂方案和PGT周期中,使用双(醋酸曲普瑞林0.2毫克和重组hCG[rhCG] 250微克)或hCG(rhCG 250微克)触发器进行卵母细胞成熟。我们对胚胎结果和 FET 累积妊娠结果进行了评估:取出的卵母细胞数(10.17 ± 5.22 vs 10.27 ± 5.14,P = 0.789)、MII 卵母细胞数(8.24 ± 4.26 vs 8.28 ± 4.05,P = 0.888)、囊胚数(2.16 ± 1.50 vs 2.12 ± 1.49,P = 0.729), euploid blastocysts (1.06 ± 1.14 vs 1.09 ± 1.23, P = 0.726), and the rate of cumulative LBR (24.9% vs 24.9%, P = 1.000) in the dual trigger group were comparable with those in the hCG group.根据逻辑回归分析,触发方法与较高的 LBR 无关(几率比[OR] = 1.040 [0.778-1.392],P = 0.790):结论:对于卵巢反应差和正常者,与 hCG 触发相比,双重触发并不能改善 PGT 胚胎结局和 FET 累积妊娠结局。
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
Dual trigger versus human chorionic gonadotropin trigger for blastocyst quality and cumulative live birth.

Purpose: To evaluate the difference in the number of euploid blastocysts and cumulative live birth rate (LBR) between dual and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) triggers in poor and normal ovarian responders undergoing preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was enrolled from July 2018 to December 2021 and followed up until June 2024 at a single reproductive medical center. Overall, 1040 in vitro fertilization (IVF)-PGT and 784 frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles were assessed. Dual (triptorelin acetate 0.2 mg and recombinant hCG [rhCG] 250 µg) or hCG (rhCG 250 µg) trigger was used for oocyte maturation in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and PGT cycles. We assessed the embryo outcomes and FET cumulative pregnancy outcomes.

Results: The number of oocytes retrieved (10.17 ± 5.22 vs 10.27 ± 5.14, P = 0.789), MII oocytes (8.24 ± 4.26 vs 8.28 ± 4.05, P = 0.888), blastocysts (2.16 ± 1.50 vs 2.12 ± 1.49, P = 0.729), euploid blastocysts (1.06 ± 1.14 vs 1.09 ± 1.23, P = 0.726), and the rate of cumulative LBR (24.9% vs 24.9%, P = 1.000) in the dual trigger group were comparable with those in the hCG group. The trigger method was not correlated with higher LBR based on logistic regression analysis (odds ratio[OR] = 1.040 [0.778-1.392], P = 0.790).

Conclusion: For poor and normal ovarian responders, the dual trigger, compared with the hCG trigger, did not improve the PGT embryo outcomes and FET cumulative pregnancy outcomes.

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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
9.70%
发文量
286
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics publishes cellular, molecular, genetic, and epigenetic discoveries advancing our understanding of the biology and underlying mechanisms from gametogenesis to offspring health. Special emphasis is placed on the practice and evolution of assisted reproduction technologies (ARTs) with reference to the diagnosis and management of diseases affecting fertility. Our goal is to educate our readership in the translation of basic and clinical discoveries made from human or relevant animal models to the safe and efficacious practice of human ARTs. The scientific rigor and ethical standards embraced by the JARG editorial team ensures a broad international base of expertise guiding the marriage of contemporary clinical research paradigms with basic science discovery. JARG publishes original papers, minireviews, case reports, and opinion pieces often combined into special topic issues that will educate clinicians and scientists with interests in the mechanisms of human development that bear on the treatment of infertility and emerging innovations in human ARTs. The guiding principles of male and female reproductive health impacting pre- and post-conceptional viability and developmental potential are emphasized within the purview of human reproductive health in current and future generations of our species. The journal is published in cooperation with the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, an organization of more than 8,000 physicians, researchers, nurses, technicians and other professionals dedicated to advancing knowledge and expertise in reproductive biology.
期刊最新文献
The impact of Duostim protocol on pregnancy outcomes in infertile patients: A meta-analysis comparing single and double conventional stimulation cycles. Effect of zinc on sperm recovered by swim-up. The nexus between gamete donation and cryobiology in ARTs: Avoiding the unavoidable. Phenotypic impact of CFTR mutations on male reproductive tract agenesis in a Chinese cohort with congenital absence of the vas deferens. A novel homozygous mutation in the NLRP2 gene causes early embryonic arrest.
×
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