Volume 19, Issue 10 (October 2021)                   IJRM 2021, 19(10): 863-872 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Zareii A, Davoodi S, Alborzi M, Eslami Moghadam M, Askary E. Co-administration GnRH agonists with vaginal progesterone compared to vaginal progesterone in luteal phase support of the frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycle: An RCT. IJRM 2021; 19 (10) :863-872
URL: http://ijrm.ir/article-1-1822-en.html
1- Infertility Division, Infertility Research Center, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
2- Infertility Division, Infertility Research Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
3- Infertility Division, School of Medicine, Jahrom University of Medical Sciences, Jahrom, Iran.
4- School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
5- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Laparoscopy Research Center, School of Medicine, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. , elliaskary_md@yahoo.com
Full-Text [PDF 350 kb]   (788 Downloads)     |   Abstract (HTML)  (1662 Views)
Full-Text:   (413 Views)
  1. Introduction

The average prevalence of infertility is 1.9% in women aged 20-44 yr old (1). Despite the high cost of assisted reproductive technology, infertile couples have a high tendency to try these available procedures (2). 

Nowadays, frozen embryo transfer (FET) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles have become more popular as the technique is associated with lower rate of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome and higher rate of endometrial-embryo synchrony, and may also associate with a greater IVF success rate (3-5). In addition, in contrast to fresh embryo transfer method, pregnancy complications such as preterm delivery, low birth weight, and small-for-gestational age will be also reduced (6, 7).

Given the important role of endometrial condition in the embryo implantation success rate and births and also the lack of enough progesterone for endometrial stability and receptivity in patients who are selected for HRT treatment for endometrial preparation, several studies have suggested some additional drugs to improve the success rate in FET and increase live births in these cycles by supporting the luteal phase such as exogenous progesterone, but this treatment does not seem to be enough (8-13).

The administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) for luteal phase support (LPS), especially in the middle of the luteal phase, can increase the implantation rate by preventing the premature decline of luteinizing hormone (LH) level and early regression of corpus luteum.  It increases the number of luteinizing hormone receptors on the endometrial cells and the growth of endometrial pinopods (which lead to better endometrial thickness and receptivity FET cycles) (14-18). Also, administration of GnRH-a stimulating human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) secretion from a human embryo to active the endocrine-paracrine pathways for increasing the implantation rate in these cases (10-13, 15). The administration of a single dose of GnRH-a at the time of implantation for LPS is useful and in some studies have been investigated (19, 20). However, four recent systematic reviews have reported adding an extra dose of GnRH-a for better LPS in FET cycles (18, 21-23). The additional dose of GnRH-a was prescribed on the sixth day of the embryo transfer, two days before the expected day of implantation, This extra dose of GnRH-a administration simulate the natural cycle peak of progesterone during mid-part of the luteal phase by boosting endogenous LH and maintaining the proper level of progesterone for implantation (24-26).

The evaluation of the effect of GnRH-a administration on LPS is very limited in literature. Due to this reason and knowing the short duration effect of GnRH-a (24-36 hr) and the safety and effectiveness of the drug (27, 15), we designed a clinical trial study to compare the effect of GnRH-a + progesterone for LPS. The results of this study provide useful information on the effects of GnRH-a on the outcome of IVF in FET compare to vaginal progesterone alone.

 

  1. Materials and Methods

    1. Study design and participants

This randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on 240 infertile women who were candidate for FET referred to the Department of Infertility in a Ghadir mother & child Hospital of Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (SUMS), Shiraz, Iran from September 2016 to March 2017.
The sample size was determined based on the following formula with 95% power and 0.05% = ɑ error:
 

 
240 participants were assigned randomly in to two groups; the random allocation method in this study will be the permutation block randomization method, such that "A" represents the subject receiving the intervention (Drug), and "B" represents the subject who receives the placebo. This method is based on 60 blocks in 4 permutations (60×4 = 240), taking into account all possible quadruple permutations (AABB, ABAB, ABBA, BAAB, BBAA and BABA). Group I received 400 mg vaginal progesterone (Cyclogest) a day and group II received 0.1 mg diphereline on days 0, 3, and 6 of FET for LPS in addition to vaginal progestrone. The inclusion criteria were infertile women aged 20-40 year with unexplained infertility, infertility due to fallopian tube factors, mild male factor, premature ovarian failure, or polycystic ovary syndrome, normal uterine cavity; and at least one-month gap since the previous IVF cycle. All women with endometriosis (stages III and IV), hydrosalpinx, infertility due to severe male factor, and recurrent implantation failure (at least three unsuccessful transfer cycles) were excluded.
 
2.2. Intervention procedures
Women undergoing IVF with the agonist or antagonist protocol according to their condition were fertilized by IVF or ICSI after ovum pick-up. Approximately 16-19 hour after the fertilization, egg formation was confirmed by evaluating the presence of bipronuclear (2 PN) and was removed if microscopy was not seen. Then, the fertilized oocytes were classified by their quality so that on the third day of fertilization (66-68 hour), embryos with ≥ 8 cells with a fragmentation rate of < 20% were embedded as high quality (grade A) and embryos with lower quality were classified as group B, C, and D and were separated from each other. The embryos were frozen at the 8-cell stage (cleavage), using the slow freezing verification method, and the next protocol was maintained for each case in accordance with the standard protocol.
Endometrial preparation in women who did not have any intervention for at least one month before the transfer was started with 6 mg/day estradiol valerate (estradiol valerate tablet, 2 mg, Abooreyhan, Iran) from the second day of their menstrual cycle. The dosage of estradiol was increased till the endometrial thickness reached 8-14 mm in transvaginal sonography. Next, 100mg/day progesterone (progesterone ampule, 50 mg, Iran Hormone Co., Iran) were injected for 3-5 days based on the embryo stage. Estradiol valerate was continued till 3-5 days before the ET (depending on the stage of embryo development).
On the day of the transfer, class-A frozen embryos, after thawing, were re-evaluated for quality control, and those whose quality had declined below grade D were excluded from the research. The number of embryos that were transferred was based on the mother’s age as the protocol (28).
The fetus was transferred to the uterus using a cook catheter (Cooper Surgical Co., USA)
For women younger than 35 year and those aged 35-40 years, two and three embryos with grade-A were transferred, respectively.
Then, participants were randomized into two groups, (n = 120/ each) as follow:

  • Group I received vaginal progesterone 400-mg/ twice a day (Cyclogest, vaginal progesterone (400 mg), Actavis, UK).

  • Group II received GnRH-agonist (0.1 mg triptorelin or dipherelin; Decapeptyl; IPSN, France) subcutaneously on the day of embryo transfer, and the 3 and 6 days after that + vaginal progesterone 400-mg/ twice a day.

Our primary outcome included clinical pregnancy rates (CPRs), while the secondary outcomes included the overall conception rate, ongoing pregnancy rate (pregnancy beyond 12 weeks), and the rate of spontaneous abortion in each group.

On the 16th day after the ET, the chemical pregnancy rate was investigated by a beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-HCG) blood test. The clinical pregnancy rate was measured by a transvaginal sonography six weeks after a positive β-HCG test for observing the fetal heart rate and a live intrauterine pregnancy.
Then, in the 12th weeks of pregnancy, a transvaginal sonography was done again to confirm a continuation of live pregnancy (Ongoing pregnancy). LPS was continued according to the protocol up to 12 week after the ET. Also, participants were observed for spontaneous abortion during the first 20 weeks of the pregnancy.
 
2.3. Ethical considerations
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Shiraz university of medical sciences (Code: IR.SUMS.MED.REC.1395.49) and registered at the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials. Based on the available evidence from literature, we know that these two types of treatments do not pose any potential risk to participants. Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the initiation of treatment and all treatment procedures were explained to them.
 
2.4. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Chicago, IL) version 18. Data were presented as number (%) or mean ± SD/median as appropriate. Elementary and continuous variables were analyzed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests. The relative risk (95% confidence interval) was calculated. P-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

 

  1. Results

Of the 480 total cases with infertility, 115 failed to meet the inclusion criteria, 6 had no oocyte for retrieval, and 17 did not have any transfers during the research time. The remaining 342 cases were randomly divided into two groups: group I (n = 171): the vaginal progesterone suppository group and group II (n = 171): vaginal progesterone +GnRH-a group. Moreover, 22 cases in the group I and 20 in the group II did not have a good endometrial thickening 29 cases in group I and 31 in the other group were lost to follow-up and were therefore excluded from the study. Finally, the data of 240 women (n = 120 in each group) were analyzed (Figure 1).
The two groups were matched in the terms of age, BMI, duration of infertility, infertility type, number of embryo transferred, embryo quality, endometrial thickness at the time of transfer, and Infertility cause (Table I).
Our findings showed no significant difference between the two groups in the terms of the implantation and abortion rates. But, the differences were significant in terms of clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates (Table II, Figure 2).
No side effects have been reported with any medication in two groups.




 

    4. Discussion

The aim of this clinical trial study was to compare the effect of vaginal progesterone and multiple doses of GnRH-a + vaginal progesterone for LPS after an FET in the IVF cycles. Our results showed that GnRH-a + vaginal progesterone increases the pregnancy rate. However, no significant difference was noted in terms of implantation and abortion rates.
An LPS plays an important role in improving the IVF outcome. Nowadays, the use of exogenous progesterone is an inseparable step for supporting the luteal phase as it is based on multiple evidence of increased pregnancy and live births (24-26). However, it seems that the progesterone alone is not enough for LPS specially in an FET or IVF cycles, so GnRH-a was suggested as a adjuvant therapy in combination with progesterone for LPS (11-13).
Several studies have demonstrated that using GnRH-a in the luteal phase can increase the CPR, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate in assisted reproductive technology cycles. A series of studies have shown that an additional single dose of GnRH-a in the luteal phase can improve the result of IVF-ET in assisted reproductive technology cycles but only a few studies have compared the single versus multiple doses of GnRH-a for LPS in FET cycles (29-34).
In the Yildiz and co-workers study, the effects of adding GnRH-a to the routine LPS was investigated and showed that the implantation, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates, and multiple pregnancies were increased. Also, two doses of GnRH-a (1 mg luperamide) on the 3rd and 6th day after ET showed higher rate of multiple pregnancies and ongoing pregnancy rate than a single injection on the third day of ET (35). In Zafardoust’s study, the effects of GnRH-a in the LPS has been investigated. Its administration with 0.1 mg of decapeptide six days after ET significantly increased the rate of implantation and pregnancy (36). Likewise, Oliveira's study showed that the administration of GnRH-a in the luteal phase led to an increase in the implantation rate (23). Kurng and colleague in their study concluded that the administration GnRH-a in LP improved pregnancy outcomes specially in cases with FSH > 8 miu/ml and in those with mature oocytes < 3/cycles (37).
Barltava and co-workers also reported that the continuation of daily GnRH-a for 2 wk in a fresh cycle and even in cases with first IVF failure can lead to satisfactory pregnancies (38, 39). Tesarik and colleagues reported a significant increase in the implantation rates with GnRH-a which was added to the routine LPS, had the same result as our study and emphasized the useful effect of GnRH-a on embryo implantation. The observed effects of GnRH-a on the implantation and embryonic β-HCG secretion were attributed to a direct effect on the embryo or its effect on the endometrium through LH (40).

However, a few conflicting results on the beneficial effects of GnRH-a for LPS have also been reported (41-43). Ata and colleagues did not observe any beneficial effects of the use of GnRH-a as an LPS in patients stimulated by long-term luteal GnRH-a protocol (41). Davar and colleagues in their RCT administered 0.1 mg decapeptyle subcutaneously three days after the ET plus daily vaginal progesterone against the use of vaginal progesterone alone. They found no differences in the implantation, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and miscarriage rates (44). 

Fortunately, no long-term side effects have been reported with GnRH-a in conception products or neonates (37, 45, 46). Li and others in their meta-analysis examined double doses of the GnRH-a in the LP of FET cycles, which was associated with increased fertility outcomes (47). Song and co-workers -in their meta-analysis showed the administration of a single dose of GnRH-a (5 to 6 days after IVF/ICSI procedures) for LPS significantly increased clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth rates compared to the control group (15). In our previous study, which evaluated three doses of GnRH-a as an LPS in FET cycles, the CPR was the highest in the group using the multiple doses of GnRH-a (0, 3, 6 days) (48).

The results of the current study showed that multiple doses of GnRH-a + vaginal progesterone as an LPS in FET cycles increases the pregnancy rate. In term of CPR, we had a significant difference was noted between the two groups (p = 0.008). Also, for ongoing pregnancy rate (till three months after an FET), a significant difference was observed between two groups (p = 0.005).

Although the mechanisms of action are not yet fully understood, GnRH-a does not interfere with the luteal phase and have a stimulating effect on the corpus luteum at certain doses (20).

The multiple doses of GnRH-a lead to gradual production of progesterone and E2 from the corpus luteum as a natural cycle. This effect is in contrast to the HCG that lead to a rapid increase in progesterone level and a premature decline in the implantation window (47). GnRH-a leads to adequate levels of luteal progesterone by acting on the pituitary gland to stimulate LH surge and preserve the corpus luteal (49). These multiple doses of the GnRH-a drug act as a bridge between the triggering period and the onset of HCG secretion by the implanting blastocyst (50). Luteal phase progesterone curve in multiple doses of GnRH-a cycles is similar to natural cycles. Therefore, the rapid endometrial growth that can lead to endometrial- embryonal dysregulation is eliminated in these cycles and the implantation rate could increase as a result. The clear effects of the GnRH-a on human morula have already been described.

In addition, in a recent Cochran's meta-analysis, the live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates in the progesterone + GnRH-a group were higher than the progesterone-only group. There was no difference in abortion and multiple pregnancies in both groups (nine RCTs, 2,861 women) (18).

 
Limitations
The limitations of this study were the lack of alignment of patients, lack of the initial evaluation of patient's biochemistry for LH, FSH, and progesterone levels during the intervention, lack of follow-up until the birth time in the pregnant fertilized women, and not evaluating the side effects of the vaginal progesterone and diphereline. Further researches can reduce these limitations.
Finally, our findings showed that after the frozen embryos were transferred, taking 3 doses of 0.1-mg dipherline + daily vaginal progesterone t instead of a daily use of 800-mg vaginal progesterone t alone was associated with increased clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate, however, it did not show a significant difference in spontaneous abortion and implantation rate.
 

   5. Conclusion

Using the of GnRH-a + vaginal progesterone as opposed to vaginal progesterone alone for LPS after IVF may be the superior choice and lead to higher rate of CPR and ongoing pregnancy rate.
 
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ali Mohammad Keshtvarz Hesam Abadi for his expert assistance in statistically analysis and all staff members from our infertility unit for their specialized help in data collecting. We declare that there was no financial connection to this article.
 
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Fertility & Infertility

References
1. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel Sh, Stevens GA. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: A systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med 2012; 9: e1001356. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356] [PMID] [PMCID]
2. Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility service use in the United States: Data from the national survey of family growth, 1982-2010. Natl Health Stat Report 2014; 73: 1-21.
3. Wang JG, Douglas NC, Dicken C, Nakhuda GS, Guarnaccia MM, Sauer MV. Cryopreservation of supernumerary high quality embryos predicts favorable outcomes for patients undergoing repeated cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 368-374. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.03.031] [PMID]
4. Stern JE, Lieberman ES, Macaluso M, Racowsky C. Is cryopreservation of embryos a legitimate surrogate marker of embryo quality in studies of assisted reproductive technology conducted using national databases? Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 890-893. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.050] [PMID]
5. Bar Hava I, Yafee H, Omer Y, Humaidan P, Ganer Herman H. GnRHa for trigger and luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen embryo transfer: A proof of concept study. Reprod Biol 2020; 20: 282-287. [DOI:10.1016/j.repbio.2020.07.009] [PMID]
6. Wennerholm UB, Soderstrom-Anttila V, Bergh C, Aittomaki K, Hazekamp J, Nygren KG, et al. Children born after cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes: A systematic review of outcome data. Hum Reprod 2009; 24: 2158-2172. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dep125] [PMID]
7. Maheshwari A, Pandey Sh, Amalraj Raja E, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Is frozen embryo transfer better for mothers and babies? Can cumulative meta-analysis provide a definitive answer? Hum Reprod Update 2018; 24: 35-58 [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmx031] [PMID]
8. Merce LT, Barco MJ, Bau S, Troyano J. Are endometrial parameters by three-dimensional ultrasound and power Doppler angiography related to in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer outcome? Fertil Steril 2008; 89: 111-117. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.029] [PMID]
9. Richter KS, Bugge KR, Bromer JG, Levy MJ. Relationship between endometrial thickness and embryo implantation, based on 1,294 cycles of in vitro fertilization with transfer of two blastocyst-stage embryos. Fertil Steril 2007; 87: 53-59. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.064] [PMID]
10. 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.
11. Bjuresten K, Landgren BM, Hovatta O, Stavreus-Evers A. Luteal phase progesterone increases live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 534-537. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.05.019] [PMID]
12. Kim CH, Lee YJ, Lee KH, Kwon SK, Kim SH, Chae HD, et al. The effect of luteal phase progesterone supplementation on natural frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Obstet Gynecol Sci 2014; 57: 291-296. [DOI:10.5468/ogs.2014.57.4.291] [PMID] [PMCID]
13. Alsbjerg B, Polyzos NP, Elbaek HO, Povlsen BB, Andersen CY, Humaidan P. Increasing vaginal progesterone gel supplementation after frozen-thawed embryo transfer significantly increases the delivery rate. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26: 133-137. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.10.012] [PMID]
14. De Ziegler D, Pirtea P, Yding Andersen C, Marc Ayoubi J. 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]
15. Song M, Liu Ch, Hu R, Wang F, Huo Zh. Administration effects of single-dose GnRH agonist for luteal support in females undertaking IVF/ICSI cycles: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Exp Ther Med 2020; 19: 786-796. [DOI:10.3892/etm.2019.8251]
16. Aunapuu M, Kibur P, Järveots T, Arend A. Changes in morphology and presence of pinopodes in endometrial cells during the luteal phase in women with infertility problems: A pilot study. Medicina 2018; 54: 69. [DOI:10.3390/medicina54050069] [PMID] [PMCID]
17. Lan VTN, Tuan PH, Canh LT, Tuong HM, Howles CM. Progesterone supplementation during cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles: efficacy and convenience of two vaginal formulations. Reprod Biomed Online 2008; 17: 318-323. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60214-3]
18. Van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JA, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; 10: Cd009154. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009154.pub2]
19. 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]
20. Pirard C, Donnez J, Loumaye E. GnRH agonist as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction technique cycles: Results of a pilot study. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 1894-1900. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/del072] [PMID]
21. Kyrou D, Kolibianakis EM, Fatemi HM, Tarlatzi TB, Devroey P, Tarlatzis BC. Increased live birth rates with GnRH agonist addition for luteal support in ICSI/IVF cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17: 734-740. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmr029] [PMID]
22. Yu LP, Liu N, Liu Y. [Effect of luteal-phase gonad-otropin-releasing hormone agonist administration on pregnancy outcome in IVF/ICSI cycles: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.] Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 2016; 51: 850-858. (In Chinese)
23. Oliveira JBA, Baruffi R, Petersen CG, Mauri AL, Cavagna M, FrancoJr JG. Administration of single-dose GnRH agonist in the luteal phase in ICSI cycles: A meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010; 8: 107-117. [DOI:10.1186/1477-7827-8-107] [PMID] [PMCID]
24. Khan N, Richter KS, Newsome TL, Blake EJ, Yankov VI. Matched-samples comparison of intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support after in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2445-2450. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.072] [PMID]
25. Miralpeix E, Gonzalez-Comadran M, Sola I, Manau D, Carreras R, Checa MA. Efficacy of luteal phase support with vaginal progesterone in intrauterine insemination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31: 89-100. [DOI:10.1007/s10815-013-0127-6] [PMID] [PMCID]
26. Erdem A, Erdem M, Atmaca S, Guler I. Impact of luteal phase support on pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination cycles: A prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2009; 91: 2508-2513. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.04.029] [PMID]
27. Humaidan P, Bredkjaer HE, Bungum L, Bungum M, Grøndahl ML, Westergaard L, et al. GnRH agonist (buserelin) or hCG for ovulation induction in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles: A prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1213-1220. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh765 [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dei191] [PMID]
28. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guidance on the limits to the number of embryos to transfer: A committee opinion. Fertil Steril 2017; 107: 901-903.
29. Tesarik J, Hazout A, Mendoza-Tesarik R, Mendoza N, Mendoza C. Beneficial effect of luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration on embryo implantation after ICSI in both GnRH agonist- and antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles. Hum Reprod 2006; 21: 2572-2579. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/del173] [PMID]
30. Dehghani Firouzabadi R, Ayazi Rozbahani M, Tabibnejad N. Beneficial effect of luteal-phase gonado-tropin-releasing hormone agonist administration on implantation rate after intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2009; 48: 245-248. [DOI:10.1016/S1028-4559(09)60297-7]
31. Papanikolaou EG, Platteau P, Albano C, Kolibianakis E, Devroey P. Achievement of pregnancy threetimes in the same patient during luteal GnRH agonist administration. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10: 347-349. [DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61794-4]
32. Platteau P, Gabbe M, Talbot M, Healy D. Two consecutive pregnancies during inadvertent gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist desensitization. Fertil Steril 2000; 73: 1244-1246. [DOI:10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00536-7]
33. Tan HH, Yeong ChT, Loh KESh. Perinataloutcome of pregnancies after inadvertentexposure to gonadotrophin-releasing hor-mone analogue. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 46: 336-340. [DOI:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00602.x] [PMID]
34. van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JAM, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015: CD009154. [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009154.pub3] [PMID] [PMCID]
35. Yildiz GA, Sukur YE, Ates C, Aytac R. The addition of gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist to routine luteal phase support in intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer cycles: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 182: 66-70. [DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.08.026] [PMID]
36. Zafardoust S, Jeddi-Tehrani M, Akhondi MM, Sadeghi MR, Kamali K, Mokhtar S, et al. Effect of administration of single dose GnRH agonist in luteal phase on outcome of ICSI-ET cycles in women with previous history of IVF/ICSI failure: A randomized controlled trial. J Reprod Infertil 2015; 16: 96-101.
37. Kung HF, Chen MJ, Guua HF, Chen YF, Yi YC, Yen-Ping Ho J, et al. Luteal phase support with decapeptyl improves pregnancy outcomes in intracyto-plasmic sperm injection with higher basal follicle-stimulating hormone or lower mature oocytes. J Chin Med Assoc 2014; 77: 524-530. [DOI:10.1016/j.jcma.2014.07.001] [PMID]
38. Bar-Hava I, Mizrachi Y, Karfunkel-Doron D, Omer Y, Sheena L, Carmon N, et al. Intranasal gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for luteal-phase support following GnRHa triggering, a novel approach to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in high responders. Fertil Steril 2016; 106: 330-333. [DOI:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.04.004] [PMID]
39. Mendoza-Tesarik R, Mendoza N, López CC, Tesarik J. GnRH agonist treatment of luteal phase deficiency in HCG-triggered IVF cycles: A matched case-control study. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 39: 225-230. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.03.215] [PMID]
40. 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]
41. Ata B, Yakin K, Balaban B, Urman B. GnRH agonist protocol administration in the luteal phase in ICSI-ET cycles stimulated with the long GnRH agonist protocol: A randomized, controlled double blind study. Hum Reprod 2008; 23: 668-673. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/dem421] [PMID]
42. Inamdar DB, Majumdar A. Evaluation of the impact of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist as an adjuvant in luteal-phase support on IVF outcome. J Hum Reprod Sci 2012; 5: 279-284. [DOI:10.4103/0974-1208.106341] [PMID] [PMCID]
43. Aboulghar MA, Marie H, Amin YM, Aboulghar MM, Nasr A, Serour GI, et al. GnRH agonist plus vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support in ICSI cycles: A randomized study. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 30: 52-56. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.09.017] [PMID]
44. Davar R, Farid Mojtahedi M, Miraj S. Effects of single dose GnRH agonist as luteal support on pregnancy outcome in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: An RCT. Iran J Reprod BioMed 2015; 13: 483-488.
45. Balayla J, Sheehy O, Fraser WD, Séguin JR, Trasler J, Monnier P, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes after assistedreproductive technologies. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129: 265-272. [DOI:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001837] [PMID] [PMCID]
46. Zhan QT, Pan PP, Xu XR, Lou HY, Lou YY, Jin F. An over-view of studies on psychological well-beingin children born following assisted reproduc-tive technologies. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 2013; 14: 947-960. [DOI:10.1631/jzus.B1300101] [PMID] [PMCID]
47. Li Sh, Li Y. Administration of a GnRH agonist during the luteal phase frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: A meta-analysis. Gynecol Endocrinol 2018; 34: 920-924. [DOI:10.1080/09513590.2018.1480714] [PMID]
48. 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]
49. Humaidan P, Kol S, Papanikolaou EG. GnRH agonist for triggering offinal oocytematuration: Time for a change of practice? Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17: 510-524. [DOI:10.1093/humupd/dmr008] [PMID]
50. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Restrepo H, Garner FC. Serum HCG measured in theperi-implantation period predicts IVF cycle outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 25: 248-253. [DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.05.015] [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