ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: A new approach to evaluate whether Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation with micronized vaginal progesterone was as effective as using dydrogesterone in suppress LH pulse surge in young women under stimulation in an oocyte donor programme. METHODS: This prospective study included 21 patients aged 19 to 32 years-old stimulated with Elonva® 150, associated or not with Menopur® or Merional® (75 or 150IU) since the beginning of the cycle, plus HMG 150-225IU after the 8th day or just HMG 150-300IU per day. Patients were placed in a PPOS protocol with micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) 200 mg (Gynpro® Exeltis or Junno Farmoquimica) every 12 hours or dydrogesterone (Duphaston® Abbott) 10 mg every 8 hours from the start of stimulation until the day after the GnRH trigger with Triptorelin 0.2 mg (Gonapeptyl daily®). The primary endpoint was the prevention of untimely LH surge, and secondarily the number of 16 mm follicles, retrieved oocytes and metafase II. RESULTS: Fourteen oocyte donor patients were prescribed MVP while seven others received dydrogesterone (DYG).The gonadotropin protocols included 04 with Corifollitropin alfa 150 plus HMG since the beginning and complemented after the 7th day, and 17 times of just HMG. There was no diferences in the number of follicles >10≤15mm, ≥16mm or number of metafase II oocytes. There was no untimely LH surge on both groups and no OHSS was developed after the agonist trigger. CONCLUSIONS: Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation with micronized vaginal progesterone seems to be a compelling choice for preventing premature ovulation without compromising oocyte quality in women undergoing ovarian stimulation.
ABSTRACT
Preventing a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge is a major concern in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). Several strategies have been developed over the years, including protocols with Gonadotrophin Releasing Hormone agonists and antagonists. More recently Progestin Primmed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) has shown to be equally effective in pituitary suppression, with comparable clinical and laboratorial outcomes. This is the case of a 34 year old female, with a previous diagnosis of primary infertility due to tubal factor and high ovarian reserve markers. The initial plan was to perform IVF/ICSI. followed by fresh blastocyst transfer. The chosen COS strategy was to use Alfacorifolitropin 150mg (Elonva®) and Cetrorelix acetate 0,25mg (Cetrotide®) in a flexible pituitary suppression protocol. However, because of elevated risk for Ovarian Hyper-stimulation Syndrome (OHSS) detected during ultrasound and hormonal monitoring, in order to diminish financial burden and to have a more patient friendly protocol, we switched cetrorelix acetate to oral dydrogesterone. COS was successful and resulted in 24 retrieved oocytes (16 metaphase 2 oocytes) without any premature LH peak. No OHSS symptoms occurred. Our main goal with this case report is to reinforce the feasibility and efficacy of this innovative approach, especially in patients aiming for a fresh embryo transfer, who present alert sings of OHSS during the stimulation. Developing friendlier and cheaper protocols in assisted reproduction makes the treatment more accessible and affordable.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible impact of follicular flushing on the number of oocytes retrieved and oocytes in metaphase II in patients with poor ovarian response (POR) compared to direct aspiration. METHODS: This prospective, comparative, randomized single center study included 208 punctures of patients with POR, submitted to assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatments. Two groups were compared; one in which double lumen needles were used (Wallace DNS1733) for follicular flushing (n=105), and one in which single lumen needles were used (Wallace ONS1733) for direct aspiration (n=103), upon the observation of ≤ 5 follicles between 15-17 mm, ≤ 4 follicles with sizes greater than 18 mm on hCG day, and ≤ 7 recovered oocytes. RESULTS: There were no differences in age (39.07±3.88 vs. 38.11±3.43); weight (61.73±17.53 vs. 65.96±15.44); AMH (0.63±0.59 vs. 0.94±0.97); stimulation days (9.57±1.87 vs. 10.29±2.82); estradiol levels (788.94±670.82 vs. 940.16±694.69); progesterone (617.29±319.76 vs. 561.18±486.78); or number of follicles with sizes ≥18 mm (1.84±0.95 vs. 2.07±1.09). Although gonadotropin totals (1678.28±798.52 vs. 2080.45±852.36; p=0.0008), number of aspirated oocytes (3.00±2.11 vs. 3.69±2.20; p=0.02), and number of metaphase II oocytes (2.20±1.64 vs. 2.99±1.88; p=0.02) were significantly different, oocyte / follicle ratio ≥15 mm (0.93 vs. 0.98) and metaphase II oocytes / follicles ≥15 mm (0.68 vs. 0.79) were similar in both groups. The failure to capture was 16% vs. 9.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Considering that there was no difference in the oocyte per follicle ratio, follicular flushing did not increase the number of oocytes recovered from poor responders.
