Comparison of the luteal phase estradiol priming stimulation and standard antagonist protocols in patients with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing ICSI

Authors

Keywords:

Luteal phase estradiol priming, Antagonist protocol, Diminished ovarian reserve, Intracytoplasmic sperm injection

Abstract

Background/Aim: No consensus on the optimal stimulation protocol for increasing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment's success rate in patients with diminished ovarian reserve is available. This study aimed to compare IVF outcomes in patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) stimulated with a luteal phase estradiol (E2) priming protocol versus the standard antagonist protocol. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 603 patients who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles (ICSI) after the diagnosis of DOR and who were stimulated with the luteal E2 priming protocol (E2 priming group; n = 181) or the standard antagonist protocol (antagonist group; n = 422). Groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, ovarian stimulation results, ICSI cycle outcomes, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates per embryo transfer. Results: The duration of ovarian stimulation was longer, and the total gonadotropin dose used was significantly higher (P = 0.001) in the E2 priming group than in the antagonist group. The number of embryos transferred was higher in the antagonist group when compared with E2 priming group (0.87 (0.75) versus 0.64 (0.49); P = 0.01), but no statistically significant difference in terms of embryo quality between groups was found (P > 0.05). The cycle cancellation rate, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates per embryo transfer were similar in both groups. Conclusions: No difference between IVF outcomes in the patients diagnosed with DOR who were stimulated with the antagonist protocol and the luteal E2 priming protocol was detected. The antagonist protocol might be considered more advantageous because of the shorter treatment duration and lower doses of gonadotropin. This protocol also allows more embryos to be transferred. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these findings.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Levi AJ, Raynault MF, Bergh PA, Drews MR, Miller BT, Scott RT Jr. Reproductive outcome in patients with diminished ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2001;76:666–9. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(01)02017-9

Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS, Jenkins JM. Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:521–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11525.x

Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Rep. 2011;26:1768–74. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der106

Weissman A, Howles CM, Sunkara SK. Treatment strategies in assisted reproduction for the low responder patient. In:Gardner DK, eds. Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. 3rd ed. London: Informa Health Care; 2009. p.p. 585‑586.

Land JA, Yarmolinskaya MI, Dumoulin JC, Evers JL. High‑dose human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation in poor responders does not improve in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 1996;65:961‑65. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)58269-7

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;29:225‑30. doi: 10.1007/s10815-011-9685-7

Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC, Griesinger G. Addition of growth hormone to gonadotrophins in ovarian stimulation of poor responders treated by in‑vitro fertilization: A systematic review and meta‑analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:613‑22. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmp026

Battaglia C, Salvatori M, Maxia N, Petraglia F, Facchinetti F, Volpe A. Adjuvant L‑arginine treatment for in‑vitro fertilization in poor responder patients. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1690‑7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.7.1690

Zangmo R, Singh N, Sharma JB. Diminished ovarian reserve and premature ovarian failure: A review. [Downloaded free from http://www.ivflite.org on Monday, March 8, 2021, IP: 5.176.146.113]

Baczkowski T, Kurzawa R, Glabowski W. Methods of embryo scoring in in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol 2004; 4: 5–22

Bukulmez O. Definitions and Relevance: Diminished Ovarian Reserve, Poor Ovarian Response, Advanced Reproductive Age, and Premature Ovarian Insufficiency. In: Bukulmez O. (eds) Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Assisted Reproductive Technologies. Cham Springer, 2020. p.p. 55-61

Cohen J, Chabbert-Buffet N, Darai E. Diminished ovarian reserve, premature ovarian failure, poor ovarian responder--a plea for universal definitions. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:1709-12. doi: 10.1007/s10815-015-0595-y

Check JH, Amui J, Choe JK, Cohen R. The effect of a rise or fall of serum estradiol the day before oocyte retrieval in women aged 40– 42 with diminished egg reserve. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2015;42:282–4.

Huang LN, Jun SH, Drubach N, Dahan MH. Predictors of in vitro fertilization outcomes in women with highest follicle-stimulating hormone levels ≥12 IU/L: A prospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0124789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0124789

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;84:1023-26. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.04.031

Fanchon 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;18:2698–703. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg516

de Ziegler D, Jääskeläinen AS, Brioschi PA, Fanchin R, Bulletti C. Synchronization of endogenous and exogenous FSH stimuli in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). Hum Reprod. 1998;13:561–4. doi: 10.1093/humrep/13.3.561

Frattarelli JL, Hill MJ, McWilliams GD. A luteal estradiol protocol for expected poor-responders improves embryo number and quality. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1118–22. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.025

Hill MJ, McWilliams GDE, Miller KA, Scott RT, Frattarelli JL. A luteal estradiol protocol for anticipated poor-responder patients may improve delivery rates. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:739-43. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.073

Scheffer JB, Scheffer BB, Carvalho RF, Aguiar AP, Lozano DHM, Labrosse J, et al. A comparison of the effects of three luteal phase support protocols with estrogen on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcomes in patients on a GnRH antagonist protocol. JBRA Assist Reprod 2019;23:239-45. doi: 10.5935/1518-0557.20190012

Mutlu MF, Mutlu I, Erdem M, Guler I, Erdem A. Comparison of the standard GnRH antagonist protocol and the luteal phase estradiol/GnRH antagonist priming protocol in poor ovarian responders. Turk J Med Sci. 2017;47:470-75. doi:10.3906/sag-1602-111

Lee H, Choi HJ, Yang KM, Kim MJ, Cha SH, Yi HJ. Efficacy of luteal estrogen administration and an early follicular Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist priming protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2018;61:102-10. doi: 10.5468/ogs.2018.61.1.102

Ghasemzadeh A, Zadeh RD, Farzadi L, Nouri M, Souri A. Effect of Estrogen Priming in Antagonist Cycles in Women With Poor Response to IVF Treatment. Crescent J of Med and Bio Sci. 2020;7:110-15

Sefrioui O, Madkour A, Kaarouch I, Louanjli N. Luteal estradiol pretreatment of poor and normal responders during GnRH antagonist protocol. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35:1067-71. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2019.1622086

Downloads

Published

2022-05-01

Issue

Section

Research Article

How to Cite

1.
Ertürk Aksakal S, Aldemir O, Kahyaoğlu İnci, Kaplanoğlu İskender, Dilbaz S. Comparison of the luteal phase estradiol priming stimulation and standard antagonist protocols in patients with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing ICSI. J Surg Med [Internet]. 2022 May 1 [cited 2022 Dec. 1];6(5):577-81. Available from: https://jsurgmed.com/article/view/1026448