Do women using hormone replacement treatment have less pre-existing cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that women who choose to use hormone replacement therapy (HRT) already, before starting this therapy, have a better cardiovascular risk profile than those who do not use it. Some of these studies contain factors of confusion and biases, such as HRT users' greater educational achievement or physical activity, which could have led to wrong conclusions. AIM: To study a cohort, without confounding factors in order to analyse whether the cardiovascular risk profile is different in women who choose to use HRT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Coronary risk factors of 387 women between 45 and 64 were studied. This study was carried out at the Unit for the Preventive Medical Examination of the South Metropolitan Health Service in Santiago (Chile) during the annual check-up. The first evaluation was in 1991-1992; with a second evaluation 5 years later. Of all the women, 174 (45%) never received hormones (Group A), 124 (32%) were HRT users at the time (Group B), and 89 (23%) were former-users (Group C). RESULTS: No differences were found between the three groups for age, body mass index (BMI), educational background, alcohol consumption, smoking or physical activity. Blood pressure was similar in the three groups. No significant differences were found in total cholesterol (A, 221.7+/-42.2; B, 228.2+/-47.0; and C, 227.3+/-44.9 mg/dl); high density lipoprotein (HDL, A, 53.5+/-13.2; B, 51.8+/-12.8; and C, 54.0+/-12.4 mg/dl); low density lipoprotein (LDL, A, 141.7+/-38.9; B, 148.5+/-43.1 and C, 148.3+/-43.8 mg/dl); triglycerides (A, 134.5+/-67.9; B, 141.0+/-66.1; and C, 127.3+/-68.5 mg/dl) and glucose plasma levels (A, 90.5+/-32.2; B, 87.7+/-15.3; and C, 85.0+/-8.8 mg/dl). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that women who choose to use HRT have a cardiovascular risk profile, before starting the therapy, similar to those who do not use it.

Effect of disruption versus continuation of gonadotrophin-releasing agonist after human chorionic gonadotrophin administration on corpus luteum function in patients undergoing ovulation induction for in-vitro fertilization.

Previous studies have described the luteolytic effect of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) administered in the early luteal phase. The present work was undertaken to compare in a prospective and randomized design the effect of disruption versus continuation of daily GnRHa after human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration on corpus luteum function in patients undergoing ovulation induction for in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Two different studies were designed and a total of 38 ovum donors, aged 23-30 years, were included. In the first study, the effect of GnRHa on the early luteal phase of IVF-stimulated cycles was investigated (n = 27); the patients were divided into two groups, according to whether they stopped (n = 13) or continued with daily GnRHa injections (n = 14) for an additional period of 15 days after HCG administration. Blood was drawn from luteal phase days 2 to 6 (day 0 = day of HCG administration) and oestradiol and progesterone concentrations were analysed. The second study focused on the effects of continuation versus disruption of GnRHa administration in the mid-late luteal phase. A similar design was employed including six patients who stopped GnRH on day 0 and five other women who continued GnRHa for 15 days after HCG administration. In this second study, blood was drawn from days 5 to 11 and oestradiol, progesterone and luteinizing hormone (LH) concentrations were analysed. IVF parameters were similar in both groups. The results indicate that continuous GnRHa administration, after HCG injection, does not produce changes in oestradiol, progesterone and LH concentrations in the early, mid- and late luteal phases compared to those patients in whom GnRHa is discontinued at the day of HCG administration. The present work demonstrates that, when ovulation induction is performed, the corpus luteum is driven primarily by the HCG, regardless of the administration or disruption of GnRHa in the luteal phase. This suggests that the lack of differences between continuation versus disruption of GnRHa may be due to the accumulation of the product over the previous 2-3 weeks of treatment.

The role of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection in couples with unexplained infertility after failed intrauterine insemination.

OBJECTIVE: To determine an optimal insemination technique in patients undergoing IVF after failed IUI and the role of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in such cases. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized study in couples with unexplained infertility (n = 63) and mild endometriosis (n = 7) undergoing IVF after four IUI cycles. Sibling oocytes were randomized into standard IVF or ICSI insemination according to the order of retrieval. SETTING: In vitro fertilization program at the Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad, Valencia, Italy. PATIENT(S): Seventy couples with unexplained infertility undergoing IVF after failing to conceive with controlled ovarian stimulation and IUI. INTERVENTION(S): In vitro fertilization and ICSI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Fertilization, cleavage, and embryo quality were compared in IVF- and ICSI-inseminated oocytes. RESULT(S): There was no significant difference in fertilization rates between ICSI (60.4%) and conventional IVF (54.0%). Similarly, there was no difference in embryo quality between both groups. There was no total fertilization failure in ICSI-inseminated oocytes, whereas 8 (11.4%) of 70 cases showed absence of fertilization when conventional IVF was used. CONCLUSION(S): Couples with unexplained infertility and mild endometriosis failing to conceive with IUI and undergoing IVF have an 11.4% chance of fertilization failure that can be overcome easily by using ICSI in at least some oocytes. ICSI, however, is not superior to IVF as an insemination technique in most cases. These data should be used in counseling patients.

Effect of age on sperm fertility potential: oocyte donation as a model.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of age on sperm fecundability using oocyte donation as an in vivo model. SETTING: Oocyte donation and IVF programs at the Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad. DESIGN: Retrospective study in which four groups of oocyte donation cycles were established according to age of the male providing the semen sample: group 1 (n = 31) < 30 years; group 2 (n = 195) 31 to 40 years; group 3 (n = 98) 41 to 50 years; group 4 (n = 21) > 51 years, the oldest being 64 years. All donated oocytes were obtained from patients < 35 years old. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Male age, sperm characteristics (volume, concentration, motility, morphology), fertilization, embryo quality, pregnancy, implantation, and abortion rates among recipients. RESULTS: Similar sperm characteristics in fresh as well as after preparation for IVF were observed among males of different ages. Fertilization, embryo quality, pregnancy, and implantation were similar among the established groups. The mean age of the females included in each group significantly increased from group 1 to group 4. CONCLUSIONS: Age (up to 64 years) does not affect sperm characteristics or its ability to fertilize human eggs. Similarly, embryo development in vitro as well as implantation in recipient uteri are not affected by age of the male providing the semen sample.

Age does not affect uterine resistance to vascular flow in patients undergoing oocyte donation.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether uterine vasculature is affected by age using oocyte donation as an in vivo model. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal study in which recipients were grouped according to age. They underwent a successful oocyte donation cycle, and single pregnancies were followed during the first trimester by color Doppler ultrasound in uterine arteries. SETTING: Oocyte donation and IVF program at the Instituto Valenciano de Infertilidad. INTERVENTIONS: Serum E2, P, and hCG levels in single ovum donation pregnancies; pulsatility and resistance indexes in uterine arteries during initial pregnancy. RESULTS: Similar serum levels of E2, P, and hCG in both groups of patients were observed. There was no difference between groups regarding the flow indexes analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: The increased incidence of early pregnancy losses observed in patients > 40 years cannot be attributed to defective response of uterine vasculature to exogenous hormone replacement. Thus, uterine aging does not appear to be a factor influencing the poor reproductive performance of women with advancing age.

Donor-recipient synchronization and the use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists to avoid the premature luteinizing hormone surge in oocyte donation.

Since the introduction of the oocyte donation technique in humans, a number of reports have been published reflecting the success and improvement of this technique. Initially, the most important problems were donor-recipient synchronization at the moment of donation and the premature secretory changes in the endometrium consequent to the spontaneous luteinizing hormone (LH) rise in patients that still showed ovarian function. Today, with the new substitutive hormonal protocols, these two major problems have been solved. The endogenous LH rise can be avoided by administering gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists, without any deleterious effects on implantation when they are used in patients with ovarian function. Donor-recipient synchronization is possible because the recipients can remain indefinitely with substitutive therapy until the donation becomes feasible. Here, our experiences with both new strategies are presented.