Analysis of two different luteal phase support regimes and evaluation of in vitro fertilization-intra cytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes

The Role of Total Oxidant and Antioxidant Levels in Follicular Fluid in Unexplained İnfertility

BACKGROUND

Unexplained infertility is defined as the absence of any pathology in the basic evaluation performed in couples who cannot achieve pregnancy after 1 year of unprotected sexual intercourse. The results of tests examining the causes of infertility show no identifiable cause in almost 15% of couples.

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of reactive oxygen species (ROS) on pregnancy and embryos.

METHODS

This study included 200 patients, aged between 20-44 years, with unexplained infertility, who had recurrent intrauterine inseminations failures and hence started in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment. Some amounts of waste follicular fluid samples were collected by embryologists from the oocytes of these patients during the ovum pick-up procedure. Next, total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and oxidative stress index (OSI) values were calculated in the biochemistry laboratory.

RESULTS

In terms of pregnancy status, both follicular TOS and OSI values were not significantly different in patients with biochemical and clinical pregnancy, whereas TAS values were significantly higher in patients with pregnancy (P < 0.05). In terms of embryo quality, no significant difference was observed in TAS, TOS, and OSI values between grade 1 and 2 embryos, whereas pregnancy rates were significantly higher in patients who received grade 1 embryo transfer (P < 0.05). However, the follicular fluid TAS levels were significantly lower in smoking patients than in those who did not smoke; TOS and OSI levels were significantly higher.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that exposure to oxidative stress might be a causative factor for infertility. In addition, ROS decreased the level of TAS by increasing OSI in the follicular fluid; thus, antioxidant supplementation might be a necessity.

[No improvement in live birth rate after luteal phase support by GnRH agonist]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of adding a GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) in luteal phase support (LPS) on live birth rates in IVF/ICSI in antagonist protocols.

METHODS

In total, 341 IVF/ICSI attempts are analyzed in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups: A f: LPS with progesterone alone (179 attempts) between March 2019 and May 2020; B: LPS with progesterone and an injection of triptorelin (GnRH-a) 0.1mg 6 days after oocyte retrieval (162 attempts) between June 2020 and June 2021. The primary outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were miscarriage rate, pregnancy rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristic are identical between the two groups except the infertility duration (longer in the group B). There was no significant difference between the two groups in live birth rate (24.1% versus 21.2%), pregnancy rate (33.3% versus 28.1%), miscarriage rate (4.9% versus 3.4%) and no increase the SHSO rate. The multivariate regression analysis after adjustment for age, ovarian reserve and infertility duration did not reveal a significant difference in live birth rate between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In this study, the results showed no statistically significant association with the single injection of a GnRH-a in addition to progesterone on live birth rate in luteal phase support.

GnRH agonist as a luteal support in IVF cycle: mini-review—is there a role?

Background

It has been established that assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles are usually accompanied by a defective luteal phase, and that luteal phase support (LPS) is mandatory to improve reproductive outcomes. This review aims to summarize the hypothesis, safety and current evidence about GnRH agonist as a luteal phase support in ART.

Main body

There are many regimens of luteal phase support to improve ART outcomes in women undergoing fresh and thawed cycles. Luteal phase support drugs include progesterone, human chorionic gonadotropin, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, estradiol, and recombinant luteinizing hormone. There is some debate about optimal drugs and timing for start of LPS in ART cycles.

Conclusion

Although most centers support luteal phase by vaginal progesterone, GnRH agonist is a debatable drug for luteal support cycles.

Luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive technology: An ongoing challenge

It has been shown that in controlled ovarian hyper stimulation cycles, defective luteal phase is common. There are many protocols for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization cycles. These approaches include progesterone supplements, human chorionic gonadotropin, estradiol, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist, and recombinant luteinizing hormone. The main challenge is luteal-phase support (LPS) in cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering. There is still controversy about the optimal component and time for starting LPS in assisted reproductive technology cycles. This review aims to summarize the various protocols suggested for LPS in in vitro fertilization cycles.

Is there any correlation between Estradiol supplementation, as luteal phase support, and clinical pregnancy in ART cycles? A cross-sectional study

Background

Endometrial receptivity is one of the important factors in assisted reproductive technology (ART) success. In the luteal phase of an ART cycle, serum estradiol (E2) and progesterone are often placed in low levels. Supporting the luteal phase with progesterone is a usual method.

Objective

To evaluate the effects of E2 supplementation plus progesterone on the luteal phase support in the antagonist protocol who have undergone intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer cycles.

Materials and Methods

In this cross-sectional study, 200 patients with antagonist stimulation protocol, who had undergone intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, were divided into two groups based on the use of E2 supplementation. In both groups, 400 mg progesterone suppositories (CyclogestⓇ), twice a day/vaginally, was administered starting from the day of oocyte collection until the fetal heart activity. However, in the E2 group, in addition to progesterone, 4 mg tablet of E2 was received daily. Beta hCG was checked 14 days after the embryo transfer, and the clinical pregnancy rate was the main endpoint.

Results

The patients' characteristics were matched, and insignificant differences were observed, except for endometrial thickness. The clinical outcomes showed the rate of pregnancy was higher in the E2 group compared to the control group; nonetheless, statistically, there was no noticeable difference.

Conclusion

E2 supplementation had no beneficial effect in the luteal phase support of IVF cycles. Nevertheless, more studies are required to confirm the supportive role of E2 supplementation for embryo implantation and to improve the outcomes in ART cycles.