

Author: Vlaisavljevic Veljko Reljic Milan Lovrec Vida Gavric Kovacic Borut
Publisher: Reproductive Healthcare Ltd
ISSN: 1472-6483
Source: Reproductive BioMedicine Online, Vol.7, Iss.3, 2003-10, pp. : 301-308
Disclaimer: Any content in publications that violate the sovereignty, the constitution or regulations of the PRC is not accepted or approved by CNPIEC.
Abstract
This prospective randomized study compared the effectiveness of a flexible single-dose gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (cetrorelix) and a single-dose long GnRH agonist (goserelin) protocol for ovarian stimulation in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. All patients from the waiting list were successively included in the study, pre-programmed with an oral contraceptive, and randomized into goserelin and cetrorelix groups. Depending on the date on which their menstrual period started, patients took oral contraceptives for one or two cycles. Ultimately, 236 patients in the first group received a single dose of depot preparation of goserelin and 224 patients received a single 3 mg dose of cetrorelix in the late follicular phase, when the mean follicle diameter exceeded 12 mm. The mean number of ampoules of FSH and the duration of stimulation was statistically significantly lower in the cetrorelix group than in the goserelin group (25.9 versus 34.5, and 9.6 versus 12.2 days, P < 0.01). The mean number of oocytes retrieved was similar (6.7 ± 4.5 versus 7.2 ± 4.6, NS). Similar results were observed in fertilization rates, blastulation rates and blastocyst transfer rates in both groups. Clinical pregnancy and delivery rates per cycle were higher in the goserelin group (34.3 and 30.1%) than in the cetrorelix group (31.9 and 28.3%), but the differences were not statistically significant. The flexible single-dose GnRH antagonist protocol is an advantageous alternative to the long GnRH agonist protocol, with similar efficacy, shorter duration, a significant reduction in the number of FSH ampoules used and without the menopause-like effects of the GnRH antagonist.
Related content




By Roulier Roger Chabert-Orsini Véronique Sitri Marie-Christine Barry Bernard Terriou P
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, Vol. 7, Iss. 2, 2003-09 ,pp. :


By Humaidan P Bungum L Bungum M Hald F Agerholm I Blaabjerg J Andersen C Yding Lindenberg S
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, Vol. 11, Iss. 6, 2005-12 ,pp. :


By Garcia-Velasco JA Coelingh Bennink HJT Epifanio R Escudero E Pellicer A Simón C
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, Vol. 15, Iss. 3, 2007-09 ,pp. :


By Ho Chi-Hong Chen Shee-Uan Peng Fu-Shiang Chang Chih-Yuan Lien Yih-Ron Yang Yu-Shih
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, Vol. 16, Iss. 5, 2008-05 ,pp. :