Volume 19, Issue 9 (September 2021)                   IJRM 2021, 19(9): 761-772 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Dashti S, Eftekhar M. Luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology: An ongoing challenge. IJRM 2021; 19 (9) :761-772
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-1942-en.html
Luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology: An ongoing challenge
Saeideh Dashti1 , Maryam Eftekhar * 2
1- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.
2- Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd Reproductive Sciences Institute, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran. , Eftekharmaryam@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (1908 Views)
It has been shown that in controlled ovarian hyper stimulation cycles, defective luteal phase is common. There are many protocols for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization cycles. These approaches include progesterone supplements, human chorionic gonadotropin, estradiol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, and recombinant luteinizing hormone. The main challenge is luteal-phase support (LPS) in cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering. There is still controversy about the optimal component and time for starting LPS in assisted reproductive technology cycles. This review aims to summarize the various protocols suggested for LPS in in vitro fertilization cycles.
Keywords: luteal phase support, IVF, HCG, progesterone, GnRH agonist
Full-Text [PDF 298 kb]   (1248 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (303 Views)  
Type of Study: Review Article | Subject: Fertility & Infertility
References
1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Current clinical irrelevance of luteal phase deficiency: A committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2015; 103: e27-e32. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.128]
2. Andersen CY, Fischer R, Giorgione V, Kelsey ThW. Micro-dose hCG as luteal phase support without exogenous progesterone administration: Mathematical modelling of the hCG concentration in circulation and initial clinical experience. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016; 33: 1311-1318. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-016-0764-7] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Casper RF, Yanushpolsky EH. Optimal endometrial preparation for frozen embryo transfer cycles: Window of implantation and progesterone support. Fertil Steril 2016; 105: 867-872. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.01.006] [PMID]
4. Dehghani Firouzabadi R, Ayazi Rozbahani M, Tabibnejad N. Beneficial effect of luteal-phase gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist administration on implantation rate afterintracytoplasmic sperm injection. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 48: 245-248. [DOI:10.1016/S1028-4559(09)60297-7]
5. Fatemi HM. Simplifying luteal phase support in stimulated assisted reproduction cycles. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 1035-1036. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.08.019] [PMID]
6. Leth-Moller K, Jagd SH, Humaidan P. The luteal phase after GnRHa trigger-understanding an enigma. Int J Fertil Steril 2014; 8: 227-234.
7. Watters M, Noble M, Child T, Nelson S. Short versus extended progesterone supplementation for luteal phase support in fresh IVF cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod BioMed Online 2019; 40: 143-150. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.10.009] [PMID]
8. Miyake A, Aono T, Kinugasa T, Tanizawa O, Kurachi K. Suppression of serum levels of luteinizing hormone by short-and long-loop negative feedback in ovariectomized women. J Endocrinol 1979; 80: 353-356. [DOI:10.1677/joe.0.0800353] [PMID]
9. Griesinger G, Meldrum D. Introduction: Management of the luteal phase in assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 747-748. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.009] [PMID]
10. Suthaporn S, Jayaprakasan K, Maalouf W, Thornton JG, Walker KF. The strength of evidence supporting luteal phase progestogen after assisted reproduction: A systematic review with reference to trial registration and pre-specified endpoints. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020; 245: 149-161. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.12.002] [PMID]
11. Nigam A. Luteal phase support: Why, when and how. Pan Asian J Obs Gyn 2018; 1: 79-83.
12. de Ziegler D, Pirtea P, Andersen CY, Ayoubi JM. Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), progesterone, and estrogen in luteal phase support after hCG triggering, and when in pregnancy hormonal support can be stopped. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 749-755. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.03.006] [PMID]
13. Zarei A, Sohail P, Parsanezhad ME, Alborzi S, Samsami A, Azizi M. Comparison of four protocols for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed Embryo transfer cycles: A randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 295: 239-246. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-016-4217-4] [PMID]
14. Yanushpolsky EH. Luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization. Semin Reprod Med 2015; 33: 118-127. [DOI:10.1055/s-0035-1545363] [PMID]
15. Nillius SJ, Johansson ED. Plasma levels of progesterone after vaginal, rectal, or intramuscular administration of progesterone. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1971; 110: 470-477. [DOI:10.1016/0002-9378(71)90686-7]
16. Lawrenz B, Coughlan C, Fatemi HM. Individualized luteal phase support. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2019; 31: 177-182. [DOI:10.1097/GCO.0000000000000530] [PMID]
17. Bernardo-Escudero R, Cortés-Bonilla M, Alonso-Campero R, de Jesús Francisco-Doce MT, Chavarín-González J, Pimentel-Martínez S, et al. Observational study of the local tolerability of injectable progesterone microspheres. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2012; 73: 124-129. [DOI:10.1159/000330711] [PMID]
18. Veysman B, Vlahos I, Oshva L. Pneumonitis and eosinophilia after in vitro fertilization treatment. Ann Emerg Med 2006; 47: 472-475. [DOI:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.12.023] [PMID]
19. Zarutskie PW, Phillips JA. A meta-analysis of the route of administration of luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology: Vaginal versus intramuscular progesterone. Fertil Steril 2009; 92: 163-169. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.018] [PMID]
20. Child T, Leonard SA, Evans JS, Lass A. Systematic review of the clinical efficacy of vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2018; 36: 630-645. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2018.02.001] [PMID]
21. Devroey P, Palermo G, Bourgain C, Van Waesberghe L, Smitz J, Van Steirteghem A. Progesterone administration in patients with absent ovaries. Int J Fertil 1989; 34: 188-193.
22. Tavaniotou A, Smitz J, Bourgain C, Devroey P. Comparison between different routes of progesterone administration as luteal phase support in infertility treatments. Hum Reprod Update 2000; 6: 139-148. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/6.2.139] [PMID]
23. Gibbons WE, Toner JP, Hamacher P, Kolm P. Experience with a novel vaginal progesterone preparation in a donor oocyte program. Fertil Steril 1998; 69: 96-101. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00457-3]
24. Chi H, Li R, Qiao J, Chen X, Wang X, Hao G, et al. Vaginal progesterone gel is non-inferior to intramuscular progesterone in efficacy with acceptable tolerability for luteal phase support: A prospective, randomized, multicenter study in China. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2019; 237: 100-105. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.04.012] [PMID]
25. Saunders H, Khan C, D'Hooghe Th, Magnúsdóttir ThB, Klingmann I, Hrafnsdóttir S, et al. Efficacy, safety and tolerability of progesterone vaginal pessaries versus progesterone vaginal gel for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilisation: A randomised controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2020; 35: 355-363. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dez261] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Stadtmauer L, Silverberg KM, Ginsburg ES, Weiss H, Howard B. Progesterone vaginal ring versus vaginal gel for luteal support with in vitro fertilization: A randomized comparative study. Fertil Steril 2013; 99: 1543-1549. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.052] [PMID]
27. Ginsburg ES, Jellerette-Nolan T, Daftary G, Du Y, Silverberg KM. Patient experience in a randomized trial of a weekly progesterone vaginal ring versus a daily progesterone gel for luteal support after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 1101-1108. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.07.014] [PMID]
28. Doblinger J, Cometti B, Trevisan S, Griesinger G. Subcutaneous progesterone is effective and safe for luteal phase support in IVF: An individual patient data meta-analysis of the phase III trials. PloS One 2016; 11: e0151388. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0151388] [PMID] [PMCID]
29. de Ziegler D, Sator M, Binelli D, Leuratti Ch, Cometti B, Bourgain C, et al. A randomized trial comparing the endometrial effects of daily subcutaneous administration of 25 mg and 50 mg progesterone in aqueous preparation. Fertil Steril 2013; 100: 860-866. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.05.029] [PMID]
30. Lockwood G, Griesinger G, Cometti B. Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: A noninferiority randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 112-119. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.010] [PMID]
31. Venturella R, Vaiarelli A, Buffo L, D'alessandro P, Colamaria S, Pedri S, et al. Progesterone for preparation of the endometrium for frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer in vitro fertilization cycles: A prospective study on patients' opinions on a new subcutaneous formulation. Gynecol Endocrinol 2018; 34: 766-771. [DOI:10.1080/09513590.2018.1451508] [PMID]
32. Licciardi FL, Kwiatkowski A, Noyes NL, Berkeley AS, Krey LL, Grifo JA. Oral versus intramuscular progesterone for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 614-618. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(98)00515-9]
33. Schindler AE. Progestational effects of dydrogesterone in vitro, in vivo and on the human endometrium. Maturitas 2009; 65 (Suppl.): S3-S11. [DOI:10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.10.011] [PMID]
34. Barbosa MWP, Silva LR, Navarro PA, Ferriani RA, Nastri CO, Martins WP. Dydrogesterone vs progesterone for luteal‐phase support: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 161-170. [DOI:10.1002/uog.15814] [PMID]
35. van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JA, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015: CD009154. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009154.pub3] [PMID] [PMCID]
36. Griesinger G, Blockeel Ch, Sukhikh GT, Patki A, Dhorepatil B, Yang DZ, et al. Oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal micronized progesterone gel for luteal phase support in IVF: A randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2018; 33: 2212-2221. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dey306] [PMID] [PMCID]
37. Yang DZ, Griesinger G, Wang W, Gong F, Liang X, Zhang H, et al. A Phase III randomized controlled trial of oral dydrogesterone versus intravaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization (Lotus II): Results from the Chinese mainland subpopulation. Gynecol Endocrinol 2020; 36: 175-183. [DOI:10.1080/09513590.2019.1645110] [PMID]
38. Zaqout M, Aslem E, Abuqamar M, Abughazza O, Panzer J, De Wolf D. The impact of oral intake of dydrogesterone on fetal heart development during early pregnancy. Pediatr Cardiol 2015; 36: 1483-1488. [DOI:10.1007/s00246-015-1190-9] [PMID]
39. The Eshre Guideline Group On Ovarian Stimulation, Bosch E, Broer S, Griesinger G, Grynberg M, Humaidan P, et al. ESHRE guideline: Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod Open 2020; 2020: hoaa009. [DOI:10.1093/hropen/hoaa009] [PMID] [PMCID]
40. Lee VCY, Li RHW, Yeung WSB, Pak Chung HO, Ng EHY. A randomized double-blinded controlled trial of hCG as luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2017; 32: 1130-1137. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dex049] [PMID]
41. Tavaniotou A, Devroey P. Luteal hormonal profile of oocyte donors stimulated with a GnRH antagonist compared with natural cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 13: 326-330. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61435-6]
42. Pinheiro LMA, da Silva Cândido P, Moreto TC, Di Almeida WG, de Castro EC. Estradiol use in the luteal phase and its effects on pregnancy rates in IVF cycles with GnRH antagonist: A systematic review. JBRA Assist Reprod 2017; 21: 247-250. [DOI:10.5935/1518-0557.20170046] [PMID] [PMCID]
43. Scheffer JB, Scheffer BB, de 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: 239-245. [DOI:10.5935/1518-0557.20190012] [PMID] [PMCID]
44. Munjal R, Gupta S. Addition of oestradiol to progesterone for luteal phase support in GnRh antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles. Fertil Sci Res 2019; 6: 35-39. [DOI:10.4103/fsr.fsr_25_19]
45. Tesarik J, Mendoza-Tesarik R, Mendoza N. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for luteal phase support: The origin of the concept, current experience, mechanism of action and future perspectives. Fertil Steril 2016; 106: 268-269. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.034] [PMID]
46. Tesarik J, Hazout A, Mendoza C. Enhancement of embryo developmental potential by a single administration of GnRH agonist at the time of implantation. Hum Reprod 2004; 19: 1176-1180. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/deh235] [PMID]
47. Şükür YE, Şimşir C, Özdemir ED, Sönmezer M. GnRH agonist addition to routine luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technology. Austin J In Vitro Fertil 2016; 3: 1024.
48. Pirard C, Loumaye E, Laurent P, Wyns Ch. Contribution to more patient-friendly ART treatment: Efficacy of continuous low-dose GnRH agonist as the only luteal support-results of a prospective, randomized, comparative study. Int J Endocrinol 2015; 2015: 727569. [DOI:10.1155/2015/727569] [PMID] [PMCID]
49. Oliveira JBA, Baruffi R, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Cavagna M, Franco Jr JG. Administration of single-dose GnRH agonist in the luteal phase in ICSI cycles: A meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010; 8: 107. [DOI:10.1186/1477-7827-8-107] [PMID] [PMCID]
50. Ma X, Du W, Hu J, Yang Y, Zhang X. Effect of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist addition for luteal support on pregnancy outcome in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: A meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2020; 85: 13-25. [DOI:10.1159/000501204] [PMID]
51. Yılmaz NK, Kara M, Hançerlioğulları N, Erkılınç S, Coşkun B, Sargın A, et al. Analysis of two different luteal phase support regimes and evaluation of in vitro fertilization-intra cytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes. Turk J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 15: 217-221. [DOI:10.4274/tjod.73603] [PMID] [PMCID]
52. Beckers NGM, Macklon NS, Eijkemans MJ, Ludwig M, Felberbaum RE, Diedrich K, et al. Nonsupplemented luteal phase characteristics after the administration of recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin, recombinant luteinizing hormone, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce final oocyte maturation in in vitro fertilization patients after ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and GnRH antagonist cotreatment. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88: 4186-4192. [DOI:10.1210/jc.2002-021953] [PMID]
53. Engmann L, Benadiva C. GnRH agonist (buserelin) or hCG for ovulation induction in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles: A prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 3258-3260. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dei190] [PMID]
54. Benadiva C, Engmann L. Luteal phase support after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering: Does it still matter? Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 763-767. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.003] [PMID]
55. Dosouto C, Haahr Th, Humaidan P. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) trigger-state of the art. Reprod Biol 2017; 17: 1-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.repbio.2017.01.004] [PMID]
56. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Thomas Sh. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist combined with a reduced dose of human chorionic gonadotropin for final oocyte maturation in fresh autologous cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2008; 90: 231-233. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.06.030] [PMID]
57. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Comparison of "triggers" using leuprolide acetate alone or in combination with low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 2715-2717. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.03.109] [PMID]
58. Maslow BL, Griffin D, Benadiva CA, Nulsen J, Engmann L. Prospective double-blind randomized placebo controlled clinical trial comparing pregnancy rates after co-administration of low dose HCG at the time of GnRH-agonist trigger or 35 hours later, for the prevention of OHSS. Fertil Steril 2016; 106 (Suppl.): e58. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.176]
59. Castillo JC, Haahr Th, Martínez-Moya M, Humaidan P. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist for ovulation trigger-OHSS prevention and use of modified luteal phase support for fresh embryo transfer. Ups J Med Sci 2020; 125: 131-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/03009734.2020.1737599 [DOI:10.1080/03009734.2020.1736696]
60. Ata B, Seyhan A, Polat M, Son WY, Yarali H, Dahan M. GnRHa trigger and modified luteal support with one bolus of hCG should be used with caution in extreme responder patients. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 2594-2595. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/det288] [PMID]
61. Vanetik Sh, Segal L, Breizman T, Kol Sh. Day two post retrieval 1500 IUI hCG bolus, progesterone-free luteal support post GnRH agonist trigger-a proof of concept study. Gynecol Endocrinol 2018; 34: 132-135. [DOI:10.1080/09513590.2017.1379496] [PMID]
62. Haas J, Kedem A, Machtinger R, Dar Sh, Hourvitz A, Yerushalmi G, et al. HCG (1500IU) administration on day 3 after oocytes retrieval, following GnRH-agonist trigger for final follicular maturation, results in high sufficient mid luteal progesterone levels-a proof of concept. J Ovarian Res 2014; 7: 35. [DOI:10.1186/1757-2215-7-35] [PMID] [PMCID]
63. Andersen CY, Elbaek HO, Alsbjerg B, Laursen RJ, Povlsen BB, Thomsen L, et al. Daily low-dose hCG stimulation during the luteal phase combined with GnRHa triggered IVF cycles without exogenous progesterone: A proof of concept trial. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 2387-2395. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dev184] [PMID]
64. Kol Sh, Breyzman T, Segal L, Humaidan P. 'Luteal coasting' after GnRH agonist trigger-individualized, HCG-based, progesterone-free luteal support in 'high responders': A case series. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 31: 747-751. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.09.001] [PMID]
65. Papanikolaou EG, Verpoest W, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P, Tournaye H. A novel method of luteal supplementation with recombinant luteinizing hormone when a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used instead of human chorionic gonadotropin for ovulation triggering: A randomized prospective proof of concept study. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 1174-1177. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.09.023] [PMID]
66. Humaidan P, Engmann L, Benadiva C. Luteal phase supplementation after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist trigger in fresh embryo transfer: The American versus European approaches. Fertil Steril 2015; 103: 879-885. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.01.034] [PMID]
67. Iliodromiti S, Lan VTN, Tuong HM, Tuan PhH, Humaidan P, Nelson SM. Impact of GnRH agonist triggering and intensive luteal steroid support on live-birth rates and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A retrospective cohort study. J Ovarian Res 2013; 6: 93. [DOI:10.1186/1757-2215-6-93] [PMID] [PMCID]
68. Engmann L, DiLuigi A, Schmidt D, Nulsen J, Maier D, Benadiva C. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce oocyte maturation after cotreatment with GnRH antagonist in high-risk patients undergoing in vitro fertilization prevents the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A prospective randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 84-91. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.002] [PMID]
69. Groenewoud ER. Endometrial preparation methods in frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Netherland: Utrecht University; 2017.
70. Shiba R, Kinutani M, Okano Sh, Kawano R, Kikkawa Y. Efficacy of four vaginal progesterones for luteal phase support in frozen‐thawed embryo transfer cycles: A randomized clinical trial. Reprod Med Biol 2020; 19: 42-49. [DOI:10.1002/rmb2.12300] [PMID] [PMCID]
71. Eftekhar M, Rahsepar M, Rahmani E. Effect of progesterone supplementation on natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Fertil Steril 2013; 7: 13-20.
72. Eftekhar M, Rahmani E, Pourmasumi S. Evaluation of clinical factors influencing pregnancy rate in frozen embryo transfer. Iran J Reprod Med 2014; 12: 513-518.
73. Casper RF. Luteal phase support for frozen embryo transfer cycles: Intramuscular or vaginal progesterone? Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 627-628. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.01.018] [PMID]
74. Corroenne R, El Hachem H, Verhaeghe C, Legendre G, Dreux C, Jeanneteau P, et al. Endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed embryo transfer in an artificial cycle: Transdermal versus vaginal estrogen. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 985. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-020-57730-3] [PMID] [PMCID]
75. Fatemi HM, Popovic-Todorovic B. Implantation in assisted reproduction: A look at endometrial receptivity. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 27: 530-538. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.05.018] [PMID]
76. Yarali H, Polat M, Mumusoglu S, Yarali I, Bozdag G. Preparation of endometrium for frozen embryo replacement cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016; 33: 1287-1304. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-016-0787-0] [PMID] [PMCID]
77. Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AEP, Kollen BJ, Macklon NS, Cohlen BJ. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19: 458-470. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmt030] [PMID]
78. Davar R, Dashti S, Omidi M. Endometrial preparation using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist prior to frozen-thawed embryo transfer in women with repeated implantation failure: An RCT. Int J Reprod BioMed 2020: 18: 319-326. [DOI:10.18502/ijrm.v13i5.7150] [PMID] [PMCID]
79. Seikkula J, Ahinko K, Polo-Kantola P, Anttila L, Hurme S, Tinkanen H, et al. Mid-luteal phase gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist support in frozen-thawed embryo transfers during artificial cycles: A prospective interventional pilot study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 2018; 47: 391-395. [DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2018.04.009] [PMID]
80. Ye H, Luo X, Pei L, Li F, Li Ch, Chen Y, et al. The addition of single dose GnRH agonist to luteal phase support in artificial cycle frozen embryo transfer: A randomized clinical trial. Gynecol Endocrinol 2019; 35: 618-622. [DOI:10.1080/09513590.2018.1563888] [PMID]
81. Eftekhar M, Dashti S, Omidi M, Tabatabaei AA. Does luteal phase support by human chorionic gonadotropin improve pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? Middle East Fertility Society Journal 2018; 23: 300-302. [DOI:10.1016/j.mefs.2018.03.003]
82. Huang P, Wei L, Li X. A study of intrauterine infusion of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) before frozen-thawed embryo transfer after two or more implantation failures. Gynecol Endocrinol 2017; 33: 67-69. [DOI:10.1080/09513590.2016.1207164] [PMID]
83. Beckers NGM, Laven JSE, Eijkemans MJC, Fauser BCJM. Follicular and luteal phase characteristics following early cessation of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist during ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2000; 15: 43-49. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/15.1.43] [PMID]
84. Connell MT, Szatkowski JM, Terry N, DeCherney AH, Propst AM, Hill MJ. Timing luteal support in assisted reproductive technology: A systematic review. Fertil Steril 2015; 103: 939-946. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.12.125] [PMID] [PMCID]
85. Mohammed A, Woad KJ, Mann GE, Craigon J, Raine-Fenning N, Robinson RS. Evaluation of progestogen supplementation for luteal phase support in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2019; 112: 491-502. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.04.021] [PMID]
Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb