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
. 2024 Jun 2;16(6):e61554.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.61554. eCollection 2024 Jun.

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH) Agonist Protocol Improves Pregnancy Outcomes During In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Treatment in Young Infertile Women: A Retrospective Study

Affiliations

Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH) Agonist Protocol Improves Pregnancy Outcomes During In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Treatment in Young Infertile Women: A Retrospective Study

Aamir Mahmood et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to determine if gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocols during in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment in young infertile women improve their pregnancy outcomes. Methodology We retrospectively reviewed the records of 876 young infertile women aged 20-35 years who underwent fresh embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles. The data were collected from their initial visits to the reproductive medicine center of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between January 2019 and December 2022. We divided them into two groups according to the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols: GnRH-a (n = 580) and GnRH-ant (n = 296). The primary outcome assessed in this study was the live birth rate. The secondary observation indicators included the total dose and duration of gonadotropin (Gn), total embryo transfer, day three (D3) embryo transfer, total two pro-nuclei (2PN) cleavage count, number of fertilizations, and implantation rate. Results The live birth rate had no clinical significance (P > 0.05). The total dose and duration of Gn stimulation in the GnRH-ant group were lower than in the GnRH-a group (P < 0.05). The total embryo transfer, D3 embryo transfer, total cleavage count, total 2PN cleavage count, number of fertilizations, transfer, and mature oocytes in metaphase II (MII) of D3 embryos in the GnRH-a group were higher than those in the GnRH-ant group (P < 0.05). The clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate of the GnRH-a group were higher than those of the control group. Conclusions The total embryo transfer, D3 embryo transfer, total cleavage count, total 2PN cleavage count, number of fertilizations, transfer and MII of D3 embryos, clinical pregnancy, and implantation rates were significantly higher in the GnRH-a protocol group. The total dosage of Gn and duration of Gn stimulation were lower in the GnRH-ant group than in the GnRH-a group. These findings provide the basis for the selection of the COH protocol in normal Chinese ovarian response patients undergoing IVF/ICSI.

Keywords: female infertility; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (gnrh) agonist; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (gnrh) antagonist; in vitro fertilization (ivf); intracytoplasmic sperm injection (icsi).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Institutional review committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University issued approval permit number is 2023107,dated 2023.9.21. Animal subjects: All authors have confirmed that this study did not involve animal subjects or tissue. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Similar articles

References

    1. GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Lambalk CB, Banga FR, Huirne JA, et al. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:560–579. - PubMed
    1. Pregnancy outcomes after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in women with endometriosis-associated infertility: GnRH-agonist versus GnRH-antagonist. Kolanska K, Cohen J, Bendifallah S, et al. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;46:681–686. - PubMed
    1. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in supposed normal ovarian responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Xiao JS, Su CM, Zeng XT. PLoS One. 2014;9:0. - PMC - PubMed
    1. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF/ET) Depalo R, Jayakrishan K, Garruti G, Totaro I, Panzarino M, Giorgino F, Selvaggi LE. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:26. - PMC - PubMed
    1. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: an ongoing debate. Orvieto R, Patrizio P. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:4–8. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources