Published date: Oct 04 2016

Journal Title: KnE Medicine

Issue title: The 6th Congress of the Asia Pacific Initiative on Reproduction (ASPIRE 2016)

Pages: 32-42

DOI: 10.18502/kme.v1i1.534

Yudha Sudewodewo.yudha@gmail.com

Binarwan Halim

Objective

Ovarian stimulation is one of important step in In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) program to produce numbers of good oocyte to achieve better pregnancy rate. Various methods of ovarian stimulation have been tried mostly now are long (agonist) and antagonist protocol. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of both protocol.

Methods

A retrospective comparative analytical study of all subfertile patients who underwent IVF program from January to December 2011 in Halim Fertility Centre that meets the inclusions and exclusions criteria was done.

Results

Number of stimulation days in antagonist groups (9.3 + 1.34 days) was similar with agonist group (9.8 + 1.57 days). The total dosage of gonadotropin used in antagonist group (1279 + 805.65) was significantly lower than agonist group (2196.3 + 931.99). Pregnancy rates between both group was similar (34% in antagonist group vs 36% in agonist group). There was no severe Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS) case in antagonist group and there were 5 cases of severe OHSS found in agonist group. There was a significant higher severe OHSS cases in agonist group.

Conclusion

Ovarian stimulation with agonist and antagonist protocol have similar efficacy in IVF outcome, but antagonist protocol appears to be safer than agonist protocol in term of incidence of severe OHSS.

[1] L. Speroff and AM. Fritz, Induction of ovulation, in Clinical Gynaecologic Endocrinology and Infertility, p. 31, Lipincott Williams, Wilkins, Philadelphia, 8th edition, 2011.


[2] U. Acharya, J. Small, J. Randall, M. Hamilton, and A. Templeton, Prospective study of short and long regimens of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist in in vitro fertilization program, Fertility and Sterility, 57, no. 4, 815–818, (1992).


[3] R. Felberbaum and K. Diedrich, Ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with gonadotrophins and gonadotrophinreleasing hormone analogues: Agonists and antagonists, Human Reproduction, 14, no. 1, 207–221, (1999).


[4] J. A. Garcia-Velasco, V. Isaza, C. Vidal, A. Landazábal, J. Remohí, C. Simón, and A. Pellicer, Human ovarian steroid secretion in vivo: Effects of GnRH agonist versus antagonist (cetrorelix), Human Reproduction, 16, no. 12, 2533–2539, (2001).


[5] A. Pellicer, E. Labarta, and E. Bosch, Agonist or antagonist? What is preferable? Instituto Universitario VI, Valencia, Spain.


[6] E. Schiff, Manual of Ovulation Induction, NA. Gautam, Ed., Jaypee Brithers Medical publishers, India, 2005.


[7] K. Gardner, A. Weissman, CM. Howles, and Z. Shoman, Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Laboratory and Clinical Perspective, Informa, Laboratory and Clinical Perspective, Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 3rd edition, 2009.


[8] M. Fluker, J. Grifo, A. Leader, M. Levy, D. Meldrum, S. J. Muasher, J. Rinehart, Z. Rosenwaks, R. T. Scott Jr., W. Schoolcraft, D. B. Shapiro, and K. Gordon, Efficacy and safety of ganirelix acetate versus leuprolide acetate in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, Fertility and Sterility, 75, no. 1, 38–45, (2001).


[9] L. I. Barmat, S. J. Chantilis, B. S. Hurst, and R. P. Dickey, A randomized prospective trial comparing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist/recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) versus GnRH-agonist/rFSH in women pretreated with oral contraceptives before in vitro fertilization, Fertility and Sterility, 83, no. 2, 321–330, (2005).


[10] M. Ludwig, R. E. Felberbaum, P. Devroey, C. Albano, H. Riethmüller-Winzen, A. Schüler, W. Engel, and K. Diedrich, Significant reduction of the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) by using the LHRH antagonist Cetrorelix (Cetrotide®) in controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction, Archives of
Gynecology and Obstetrics, 264, no. 1, 29–32, (2000).