Mehmet ERDEM, Ahmet ERDEM, İsmail GÜLER, İlknur MUTLU, Mehmet Fırat MUTLU

Comparison of the standard GnRH antagonist protocol and the luteal phase estradiol/ GnRH antagonist priming protocol in poor ovarian responders

Background/aim: The aim of the study was to compare the luteal estradiol patch/GnRH antagonists priming protocol (LPP) with the standard GnRH antagonist protocol in poor ovarian responders (PORs) in terms of the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment Materials and methods: IVF outcomes of 265 cycles in 265 patients (106 in the LPP group, 159 in the standard GnRH antagonist group) were evaluated retrospectively. Results: Mean length of stimulation (11.4 ± 2.7 vs. 10.0 ± 2.7 days; P < 0.05) and the total gonadotropin dose (3403 ± 1060 vs. 2984 ± 1112) used were significantly greater in the LPP group than in the standard GnRH antagonist protocol group. The mean number of oocytes retrieved (3.5 ± 2.6 vs. 3.7 ± 2.8), the number of mature oocytes (2.8 ± 2.2 vs. 2.6 ± 2.2), fertilization rates (65% vs. 62%), the number of embryos transferred (1.6 ± 0.6 vs. 1.7 ± 0.6), and implantation rates (16% vs. 13%) were similar. The cancellation rate did not significantly differ between the groups (9.4% vs. 13.2%). There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy (11.3% vs. 13.2%) or live birth rates per patient (3.8% vs. 9.4%) and clinical pregnancy (18.8% vs. 22.6%) or live birth rates per embryo transfer (6.3% vs. 12.9%) between the groups.

PDF

___

1. Tarlatzis BC, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9: 61-76.
2. Hendriks DJ, te Velde ER, Looman CW, Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ. Expected poor ovarian response in predicting cumulative pregnancy rates: a powerful tool. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 727-736.
3. Ulug U, Ben-Shlomo I, Turan E, Erden HF, Akman MA, Bahceci M. Conception rates following assisted reproduction in poor responder patients: a retrospective study in 300 consecutive cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2003; 6: 439-443.
4. Fanchin R, Salomon L, Castelo-Branco A, Olivennes F, Frydman N, Frydman R. Luteal estradiol pre-treatment coordinates follicular growth during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists. Hum Reprod 2003; 18: 2698-2703.
5. Fanchin R, Cunha-Filho JS, Schonauer LM, Kadoch IJ, CohenBacri P, Frydman R. Coordination of early antral follicles by luteal estradiol administration provides a basis for alternative controlled ovarian hyperstimulation regimens. Fertil Steril 2003; 79: 316-321.
6. Elassar A, Engmann L, Nulsen J, Benadiva C. Letrozole and gonadotropins versus luteal estradiol and gonadotropinreleasing hormone antagonist protocol in women with a prior low response to ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2330- 2334.
7. Hill MJ, McWilliams GD, Miller KA, Scott RT, Jr, Frattarelli JL. A luteal estradiol protocol for anticipated poor-responder patients may improve delivery rates. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 739- 743.
8. Kyrou D, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Bontis J, Tarlatzis BC. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 749-766.
9. Loutradis D, Drakakis P, Milingos S, Stefanidis K, Michalas S. Alternative approaches in the management of poor response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003; 997: 112-119.
10. Dragisic KG, Davis OK, Fasouliotis SJ, Rosenwaks Z. Use of a luteal estradiol patch and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist suppression protocol before gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2005; 84: 1023-1026.
11. Shastri SM, Barbieri E, Kligman I, Schoyer KD, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z. Stimulation of the young poor responder: comparison of the luteal estradiol/gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist priming protocol versus oral contraceptive microdose leuprolide. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 592-595.
12. Ata B, Zeng X, Son WY, Holzer H, Tan SL. Follicular synchronization using transdermal estradiol patch and GnRH antagonists in the luteal phase; does it increase oocyte yield in poor responders to gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF)? A comparative study with microdose flareup protocol. Gynecol Endocrinol 2011; 27: 876-879.
13. Chang EM, Han JE, Won HJ, Kim YS, Yoon TK, Lee WS. Effect of estrogen priming through luteal phase and stimulation phase in poor responders in in-vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29: 225-230.
14. DiLuigi AJ, Engmann L, Schmidt DW, Benadiva CA, Nulsen JC. A randomized trial of microdose leuprolide acetate protocol versus luteal phase ganirelix protocol in predicted poor responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2531-2533.
15. Weitzman VN, Engmann L, DiLuigi A, Maier D, Nulsen J, Benadiva C. Comparison of luteal estradiol patch and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist suppression protocol before gonadotropin stimulation versus microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol for patients with a history of poor in vitro fertilization outcomes. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 226-230.
16. Reynolds KA, Omurtag KR, Jimenez PT, Rhee JS, Tuuli MG, Jungheim ES. Cycle cancellation and pregnancy after luteal estradiol priming in women defined as poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 2981-2989.
17. Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L. The Bologna criteria for the definition of poor ovarian responders: is there a need for revision? Hum Reprod 2014; 29: 1842-1845.
18. Frattarelli JL, Hill MJ, McWilliams GD, Miller KA, Bergh PA, Scott RT, Jr. A luteal estradiol protocol for expected poorresponders improves embryo number and quality. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 1118-1122.
19. Mahutte NG, Arici A. Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2007; 87: 241-249.
20. Pabuccu EG, Caglar GS, Pabuccu R. Estrogen or anti-estrogen for Bologna poor responders? Gynecol Endocrinol; 2015; 31: 955-958.
21. Kansal Kalra S, Ratcliffe S, Gracia CR, Martino L, Coutifaris C, Barnhart KT. Randomized controlled pilot trial of luteal phase recombinant FSH stimulation in poor responders. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 745-750.
22. Rombauts L, Suikkari AM, MacLachlan V, Trounson AO, Healy DL. Recruitment of follicles by recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone commencing in the luteal phase of the ovarian cycle. Fertil Steril 1998; 69: 665-669.
23. Gougeon A. Regulation of ovarian follicular development in primates: facts and hypotheses. Endocr Rev 1996; 17: 121-155.
24. De Vries MJ, De Sutter P, Dhont M. Prognostic factors in patients continuing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment and dropouts. Fertil Steril 1999; 72: 674-678.
25. Sharma V, Allgar V, Rajkhowa M. Factors influencing the cumulative conception rate and discontinuation of in vitro fertilization treatment for infertility. Fertil Steril 2002; 78: 40-46.
26. Lefebvre J, Antaki R, Kadoch IJ, Dean NL, Sylvestre C, Bissonnette F, Benoit J, Ménard S, Lapensée L. 450 IU versus 600 IU gonadotropin for controlled ovarian stimulation in poor responders: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2015; 104: 1419-1425.
27. van Hooff MH, Alberda AT, Huisman GJ, Zeilmaker GH, Leerentveld RA. Doubling the human menopausal gonadotrophin dose in the course of an in-vitro fertilization treatment cycle in low responders: a randomized study. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 369-373.
28. Cedrin-Durnerin I, Bstandig B, Herve F, Wolf J, Uzan M, Hugues J. A comparative study of high fixed-dose and decremental-dose regimens of gonadotropins in a minidose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist flare protocol for poor responders. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1055-1056.