Progesterone Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) vs. clomiphene Primed Ovarian Stimulation (CPOS) in high responder (HR) patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation. A Randomised Control trial.

IF 1.8 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Krishna Mantravadi Chaitanya, Durga Gedela Rao, Isha Gambhir
{"title":"Progesterone Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) vs. clomiphene Primed Ovarian Stimulation (CPOS) in high responder (HR) patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation. A Randomised Control trial.","authors":"Krishna Mantravadi Chaitanya, Durga Gedela Rao, Isha Gambhir","doi":"10.5935/1518-0557.20240083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy and safety of PPOS and CPOS in high-responder patients undergoing COS for IVF.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This one-year prospective, randomized, controlled trial included 86 high-responder patients. They were divided into PPOS (n=44) and CPOS (n=42). Both groups underwent COS with hormonal injections, and various parameters, such as LH surge, cycle cancellation rates, birth rates, implantation rates, and more, were measured and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study revealed that LH surge occurred in 2.3% of the PPOS group and 2.5% of the CPOS group, with no significant difference (p=0.9). The cycle cancellation rates were 9.1% for PPOS and 10% for CPOS. Birth rates were 57% for PPOS and 54% for CPOS. Implantation rates were 45% for PPOS and 49% for CPOS. There was no significant difference in the duration of stimulation (PPOS: 11.30±1.96 days, CPOS: 11.41±2.02 days, p=0.807) or the total FSH used (PPOS: 2888.95±791.80IU, CPOS: 2808±834.52IU, p=0.655). The PPOS group had a mean of 19.58±8.07 retrieved oocytes, while the CPOS group had a mean of 21.87±10.02, showing no significant difference (p=0.807). Similarly, there was no significant difference (p=0.376) in the number of mature (MII) oocytes between the PPOS group (15.67±6.23) and the CPOS group (17.08±7.96). Post-trigger LH levels were significantly lower in the PPOS group (PPOS: 49.68±27.54IU/L, CPOS: 71.83±43.43IU/L, p-value 0.007), indicating LH surge suppression. Neither group reported cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PPOS and CPOS offer similar outcomes in high-responder individuals undergoing COS for IVF, except for lower post-trigger LH levels in the PPOS group. Importantly, neither group experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).</p>","PeriodicalId":46364,"journal":{"name":"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida","volume":" ","pages":"21-26"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11867250/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jornal Brasileiro de Reproducao Assistida","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5935/1518-0557.20240083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of PPOS and CPOS in high-responder patients undergoing COS for IVF.

Methods: This one-year prospective, randomized, controlled trial included 86 high-responder patients. They were divided into PPOS (n=44) and CPOS (n=42). Both groups underwent COS with hormonal injections, and various parameters, such as LH surge, cycle cancellation rates, birth rates, implantation rates, and more, were measured and compared.

Results: The study revealed that LH surge occurred in 2.3% of the PPOS group and 2.5% of the CPOS group, with no significant difference (p=0.9). The cycle cancellation rates were 9.1% for PPOS and 10% for CPOS. Birth rates were 57% for PPOS and 54% for CPOS. Implantation rates were 45% for PPOS and 49% for CPOS. There was no significant difference in the duration of stimulation (PPOS: 11.30±1.96 days, CPOS: 11.41±2.02 days, p=0.807) or the total FSH used (PPOS: 2888.95±791.80IU, CPOS: 2808±834.52IU, p=0.655). The PPOS group had a mean of 19.58±8.07 retrieved oocytes, while the CPOS group had a mean of 21.87±10.02, showing no significant difference (p=0.807). Similarly, there was no significant difference (p=0.376) in the number of mature (MII) oocytes between the PPOS group (15.67±6.23) and the CPOS group (17.08±7.96). Post-trigger LH levels were significantly lower in the PPOS group (PPOS: 49.68±27.54IU/L, CPOS: 71.83±43.43IU/L, p-value 0.007), indicating LH surge suppression. Neither group reported cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

Conclusions: PPOS and CPOS offer similar outcomes in high-responder individuals undergoing COS for IVF, except for lower post-trigger LH levels in the PPOS group. Importantly, neither group experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

黄体酮启动卵巢刺激(PPOS)与克罗米芬启动卵巢刺激(CPOS)在高反应(HR)患者接受控制卵巢刺激。一项随机对照试验。
目的:比较 PPOS 和 CPOS 对试管婴儿 COS 高反应患者的疗效和安全性:比较 PPOS 和 CPOS 对试管婴儿 COS 高反应患者的疗效和安全性:这项为期一年的前瞻性随机对照试验包括 86 名高反应患者。他们被分为 PPOS 组(44 人)和 CPOS 组(42 人)。两组患者都接受了注射激素的 COS,并对 LH 激增、周期取消率、出生率、植入率等各种参数进行了测量和比较:研究显示,PPOS 组和 CPOS 组分别有 2.3%和 2.5%的患者出现 LH 激增,差异不显著(P=0.9)。PPOS和CPOS的周期取消率分别为9.1%和10%。PPOS 的出生率为 57%,CPOS 为 54%。PPOS 的植入率为 45%,CPOS 为 49%。刺激时间(PPOS:11.30±1.96 天,CPOS:11.41±2.02 天,P=0.807)和使用的 FSH 总量(PPOS:2888.95±791.80IU,CPOS:2808±834.52IU,P=0.655)无明显差异。PPOS 组的平均取卵数(19.58±8.07)个,而 CPOS 组的平均取卵数(21.87±10.02)个,无显著差异(P=0.807)。同样,PPOS 组(15.67±6.23)和 CPOS 组(17.08±7.96)的成熟(MII)卵母细胞数也无明显差异(P=0.376)。PPOS 组触发后的 LH 水平明显降低(PPOS:49.68±27.54IU/L,CPOS:71.83±43.43IU/L,P 值 0.007),表明 LH 激增受到抑制。两组均未报告卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)病例:PPOS和CPOS为接受COS的试管婴儿高应答者提供了相似的结果,只是PPOS组的触发后LH水平较低。重要的是,两组患者均未出现卵巢过度刺激综合征(OHSS)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
56
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信