Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Oct 7:13:1037220.
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.1037220. eCollection 2022.

Ovarian stimulation in IVF couples with severe male factor infertility: GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist

Mu Lv  1 , Juanjuan Yu  1 , Peiqin Chen  2 , Qimeng Xiao  3 , Liqun Lou  1 , Yifan Luo  1 , Mu Yuan  4 , Yuan Xu  1 , Youji Feng  1 , Mingzhu Bai  4 , Zhenbo Zhang  1   5   6 , Linxia Li  7
Affiliations

Ovarian stimulation in IVF couples with severe male factor infertility: GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist

Mu Lv et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Objective: To examine the efficacy of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and the long GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) protocol during in vitro fertilization (IVF) therapy in patients with severe male infertile factors.

Methods: A total of 983 women with severe male factor infertility undergoing IVF therapy from 2017 to 2020 at one center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into the GnRH-ant group (n=527) and the GnRH-a group (n=456) according to their ovarian stimulation protocols. Patient baseline characteristics, ovarian stimulation characteristics, and clinical pregnancy outcomes were compared between the groups. The live birth rate was considered the main pregnancy outcome.

Results: GnRH-a group had a higher live birth rate compared with the GnRH-ant group (41.0% versus 31.3%, p=0.002). Moreover, the implantation (32.8% vs. 28.1%, p=0.033), biochemical pregnancy (52.4% versus 44.8%, p=0.017), clinical pregnancy (49.3% versus 39.7%, p=0.002) and ongoing pregnancy rates (43.2% vs. 34.9%, p=0.008) were higher in GnRH-a group. For patients with one embryo transferred, the GnRH-a group demonstrated higher live birth (37.0% vs. 19.4%, p=0.010) and ongoing pregnancy rate (38.9% vs. 24.5%, p=0.046) than the GnRH-ant group. Among patients with two embryos transferred, the live birth rate was also higher in the GnRH-a group than in the GnRH-ant group, with no statistical difference. No significant differences were observed in the biochemical abortion rate, clinical miscarriage rate, early miscarriage rate, late miscarriage rate, heterotopic pregnancy rate, twin pregnancy rate, and birth sex ratio between the two groups.

Conclusion: For individuals with severe male infertility undergoing IVF, the GnRH-a protocol is considered a more efficient and feasible strategy with a higher live birth rate compared to the GnRH-ant protocol, especially in single embryo transfer.

Keywords: GnRH antagonist; in vitro fertilization; live birth rate; long GnRH agonist; ovarian stimulation; severe male factor infertility.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart summarizing the design of the present retrospective study.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Evers JL. Female subfertility. Lancet (London England) (2002) 360(9327):151–9. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(02)09417-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG. International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod (Oxford England) (2007) 22(6):1506–12. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dem046 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Thonneau P, Marchand S, Tallec A, Ferial ML, Ducot B, Lansac J, et al. . Incidence and main causes of infertility in a resident population (1,850,000) of three French regions (1988-1989). Hum Reprod (Oxford England) (1991) 6(6):811–6. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137433 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lewis SE, John Aitken R, Conner SJ, Iuliis GD, Evenson DP, Henkel R, et al. . The impact of sperm DNA damage in assisted conception and beyond: recent advances in diagnosis and treatment. Reprod biomed Online (2013) 27(4):325–37. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.06.014 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lewis C, Ford AT. Infertility in male aquatic invertebrates: a review. Aquat Toxicol (2012) 120-121:79–89. doi: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2012.05.002 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances