12Jul 2019

COMPARISON OF PREGNANCY RATE AMONG DIFFERENT IVF/ICSI PROTOCOLS IN WOMEN WITH PCOS.

  • Kamal AL-Samarai Hospital, center of fertility and IVF, Baghdad /Iraq.
  • Medical City Center, Baghdad /Iraq.
Crossref Cited-by Linking logo

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • Cite This Article as
  • Corresponding Author

Objective:To assess the pregnancy rate after using of different IVF/ICSI protocols in patients with PCOS. Study design: A total of 55 infertile women with Polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle were prospectively recruited for this study in High Institute of Infertility Diagnosis and Assisted Reproductive Technology / AL-Nahrian University and Kamal AL-Samarai Hospital, center of fertility and IVF (Baghdad/Iraq) during the period from December 2015 to the end of April 2017.The fifty five PCOS women were divided into three groups: Twenty five (25) infertile women have had PCOS and young age undergone long Agonist protocol for ICSI cycle, Fifteen (15) infertile women have had PCOS who young age and have risk of OHSS (AMH > 6ng/ml or had previous history of hyper-response to ovarian stimulation protocol) undergone Antagonist protocol for ICSI and Fifteen (15) infertile women have had PCOS and age between 35-40 years old undergone short Agonist protocol for ICSI. In all patients B-HCG measure at day 14 after embryo transfer. Results:pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the PCOS patients underwent short agonist protocol (40%) compared to the PCOS patients underwent Antagonist protocol (20%) and to PCOS patients underwent long agonist protocol (16%) (P=0.0028). In this study, the percentage of pregnancy in PCOS group was (23.6%). Conclusion: It was concluded from the present study that the percentage of pregnancy was higher in polycystic ovary syndrome women more than 35 years old underwent short agonist protocol than in other ICSI/IVF protocols.

  1. Byneil S and Charissa M. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009;114: 936-49.
  2. Peitsidis, R. Agrawal. Role of vascular endothelial growth factor in women with PCO and PCOS: a systematic review. Reprod Biomed Online, 20 (2010), pp. 444?452.
  3. Pelinck MJ, Hoek A, Simons AH and Heineman?MJ. Efficacy of natural cycle IVF: a review of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2002; 8(2): pp.129? 139.
  4. Depalo R, Jayakrishan K, Garruti G, Totaro I; Panzarino M; Giorgino F and Selvaggi LE. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF/ET). Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012; 10: p.26.
  5. Schats R and Huirne JAF. The use of GnRH agonists. In : Gradner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, Shoham Z, editors. Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Volume Two: Clinical Perspectives, 4th ed.London: Informa Health care. 2012. pp.115-23.
  6. Pu D, Wu J, and Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF.?Hum Reprod.?2011; 26: pp.2742?2749.
  7. Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-sponsored PCOS consensus workshop group :Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), Hum Reprod 19 .2004; pp. 41?47, Fertile Steril.; 81: 19-25. 11.
  8. Hugues JN, C?drin-Durnerin I. Endocrine characteristics of ART Cycles. In : Gradner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, Shoham Z ,editors. Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Volume Two: Clinical Perspective.4th ed. London: Informa Health care; 2012. pp.99-114.
  9. Elder K, Dale B. In-Vitro Fertilization.3rded. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2011. pp.19-27.
  10. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, et al. The International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology (ICMART) and the World Health Organization (WHO) Revised Glossary on ART? 2009. Hum. Reprod. 2009; 24: 2683-7. 87.
  11. Al-Inany H, and Aboulghar M. GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction:a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod. 2002; 17:874?885.
  12. Schats R, Huirne JAF. The use of GnRH agonists. In : Gradner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, Shoham Z, editors. Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Volume Two: Clinical Perspectives, 4th ed.London: Informa Health care. 2012. pp.115-23.
  13. 2012. Statistical Analysis System, User's Guide. Statistical. Version 9.1th ed. SAS. Inst. Inc. Cary. N.C. USA.
  14. Lainas TG, Ioannis S, Zorzovillis IZ, Petsas GK, Lainas GT and Alexopoulou E. Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated for IVF: A prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) Hum Reprod. 2010;25: pp.683?9
  15. Jianping Ou, Weijie Xing, Yubin Li, Yanwen Xu and Canquan Zhou. Short versus Long Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Analogue suppression Protocols in IVF/ICSI Cycles in Patients of Various Age Ranges. J. plos. Org. July 24, 2015.
  16. Kaur H, Krishna D, Shetty N, Krishnan S, Srinivas M and Rao KA. A prospective study of GnRH long agonist versus flexible GnRHantagonist protocol in PCOS: Indian experience. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2012; 5: pp.181?6.
  17. Griesinger G, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC and Kolibianakis EM. GnRH-antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with poor response to gonadotrophins, polycystic ovary syndrome, and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation: A meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006; 13: pp.628?38.

[Nada Flayyih Hasan AL-Aboudy and Mohammed Sattar Maroof and Eqbal Loaibi. (2019); COMPARISON OF PREGNANCY RATE AMONG DIFFERENT IVF/ICSI PROTOCOLS IN WOMEN WITH PCOS. Int. J. of Adv. Res. 7 (Jul). 996-1003] (ISSN 2320-5407). www.journalijar.com

Nada Flayyih Hasan AL-Aboudy

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/9457      
DOI URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/9457

Download Full Paper

Download PDF No. of Downloads: 17 | No. of Views: 67