Does double trigger (GnRH-agonist plus hCG) improve outcome in poor responders undergoing IVF-ET cycle? A pilot study
Does double trigger (GnRH-agonist plus hCG) improve outcome in poor responders undergoing IVF-ET cycle? A pilot study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/09513590.2019.1576621
复制
发表时间：
2019-07-03
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Orvieto, Raoul
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haas, Jigal;Zilberberg, Eran;Orvieto, Raoul
许多战略提供了治疗反应差。然而，迄今为止还没有建立一种刺激方案相对于另一种刺激方案的令人信服的优势。在这项研究中，我们的目的是评估不同的模式和最终卵泡成熟触发的时间，在体外受精（IVF）周期的结果反应差的患者的作用。在本随机对照研究中，根据Bologna标准，接受使用促性腺激素释放激素（GnRH）拮抗剂方案的控制性超促排卵（COH）的低反应患者被随机分配到三种不同的最终卵泡成熟触发模式和时间：取卵前36小时（OPU）OPU前36小时（hCG触发）; OPU前36小时（OPU）和OPU当天的hCG（GnRHag触发）; OPU前40和34小时（双触发）的GnRHag和hCG。妊娠率、卵母细胞数量和优质胚胎（TQE）。招募了33名反应较差的患者，并随机分配至不同的研究组。虽然两组之间在患者的人口统计学和刺激变量方面没有差异，但双触发组患者的TQE数量显著较高（1.1 ± 0.9 vs. 0.30 ± 0.8和0.5 ± 0.7; p
Many strategies are offered for the treatment of poor responders. However, no compelling advantage for one stimulation protocol over another has been hitherto established. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the role of different modes and timings of final follicular maturation trigger, on in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcome of poor responder patients. In the present randomized controlled study, poor responder patients, according to the Bologna criteria, undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) using the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol were randomly assigned to three different final follicular maturation trigger modes and timings: hCG 36h before oocyte pick-up (OPU) (hCG trigger); GnRH agonist (GnRHag) 36h before (OPU) and hCG on day of OPU (GnRHag trigger); and GnRHag and hCG, 40 and 34h prior to OPU, respectively (double trigger). Pregnancy rate, number of oocytes, and top quality embryos (TQEs). Thirty-three poor responder patients were recruited and randomized to the different study groups. While there were no in-between groups' differences in patients' demographics and stimulation variables, patients in the double trigger group had a significantly higher number of TQE (1.10.9 vs. 0.30.8 and 0.5+0.7; p