21. Oocyte and embryo results of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol versus antagonist protocol at Phuong Dong General Hospital
Main Article Content
Abstract
A cross-sectional descriptive study was taken from 512 couple undergoing in-vitro fertilisation; couples were divided into two groups: PPOS (n = 252) versus Antagonist (n = 260). There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics (age, BMI, AMH, AFC, FSH, LH) between the two study groups. The number of oocytes retrieved was slightly less in the PPOS group (12.97 ± 4.10) than in the antagonist group (13.33 ± 4.54) although the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Total MII oocytes (10.46 ± 3.56 vs. 10.76 ± 3.42, p > 0.05) and 2PN fertilization rate (81.46 ± 18.78 vs. 82.64 ± 20.15, p > 0.05) were comparable between both groups. The number of day 3 embryos (8.68 ± 4.90 vs. 8.88 ± 4.93, p > 0.05) and good-quality day-3 embryos rate (57.94 ± 23.63 vs. 59.21 ± 25.17, p > 0.05) did not show any significant difference between PPOS protocol and GnRH antagonist. No difference was observed regarding the mean number of blastocysts (day 5 and day 6 embryos) and good-quality blastocysts embryos rate between the two study groups, respectively. The PPOS protocol has similar outcomes as the Antagonist protocol in terms of oocyte and embryo quantity and quality.
Article Details
Keywords
PPOS, Antagonist, ovarian stimulation
References
2. Kuang Y, Chen Q, Fu Y, et al. Medroxyprogesterone acetate is an effective oral alternative for preventing premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertility and Sterility. 2015; 104(1): 62–70. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.03.022.
3. Haipeng Huang et al. Usefulness of random-start progestin-primed ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation. J Ovarian Res. 2022 Jan 4; 15(1): 2. doi: 10.1186/s13048-021-00935-5.
4. Kanad Dev Nayar, Shweta Gupta, Sabina Sanan, et al. Progesterone primed ovarian stimulation protocol (PPOS) vs GnRH antagonist for patients of freeze all cycles: a prospective randomised controlled trial. Fertility and Sterility. 2022; 118(4): 493. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.09.088.
5. Yu S, Long H, Chang HYN, et al. New application of dydrogesterone as a part of a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for IVF: a randomized controlled trial including 516 first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod. 2018; 33(2):229-237. doi:10.1093/humrep/dex367.
6. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2011 Jun; 26(6): 1270-83. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der037.
7. Gardner K, Schoolcraft B. Culture and transfer of human blastocyst. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 11(3): 307-311. doi: 10.1097/00001703-199906000-00013.
8. Lê Khắc Tiến. Hiệu quả của phác đồ PPOS so với GnRH antagonist trong kích thích buồng trứng thụ tinh trong ống nghiệm. Paper presented at: IVF Experts meeting 18,2023.
9. Mohamed Elmahdy, Duaa El-Shahat, Madline Ezzat, et al. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in patients with different ovarian reserve: a retrospective cohort study. Gynaecology & Obstetrics Journal. 2024 Sep; 36(3): 281-291. doi: 10.36129/jog.2023.141.
10. Chen ZQ, Zhang Y, Li H, et al. A randomized controlled trial to compare the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer following the progestin- primed ovarian stimulation protocol versus the antagonist protocol in women with an anticipated high ovarian response, Fertility and Sterility. 2024 Jun; 121(6): 937-945. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2024.01.027.