Skip Navigation


Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on May 16, 2006
Human Reproduction 2006 21(9):2246-2251; doi:10.1093/humrep/del152
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
21/9/2246    most recent
del152v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bodri, D.
Right arrow Articles by Coll, O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bodri, D.
Right arrow Articles by Coll, O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Comparison between a GnRH antagonist and a GnRH agonist flare-up protocol in oocyte donors: a randomized clinical trial

D. Bodri1,3, V. Vernaeve1, J.J. Guillén1, R. Vidal1,2, F. Figueras2 and O. Coll1,2

1 Clínica EUGIN and 2 Hospital Clínic, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at: Clínica EUGIN, calle Entença 293-295, 08029 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail: dbodri{at}euvitro.com

BACKGROUND: Little information is available on the outcome of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) using GnRH antagonist in oocyte donation cycles especially in comparison with the short GnRH agonist protocol. This study was aimed at comparing the two stimulation protocols in oocyte donation (OD) cycles. METHODS: A total of 113 donors randomly received COH using either GnRH antagonist or GnRH agonist. The primary endpoint was the mean number of mature oocytes retrieved per started donor cycle. Secondary endpoints were the mean number of cumulus–oocyte–complexes (COCs) retrieved, the mean proportion of mature oocytes, pregnancy and implantation rates in recipients. RESULTS: Oocytes were distributed to 166 recipients. The mean number (± SD) of COC (11.6 ± 5.8 versus 12.1 ± 6.7), mature oocytes (8.4 ± 4.4 versus 8.9 ± 5.3) and the proportion of mature oocytes (70.8 versus 75.7%) retrieved per started donor cycle were similar in the antagonist and agonist groups, respectively. The implantation rate (26.1 versus 30.1%), clinical (40.2 versus 45.6%) and ongoing pregnancy rate per recipient cycle (32.2 versus 37.9%) were comparable in antagonist and agonist protocols, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar mean number of mature oocytes and comparable pregnancy rates are achieved after OD in which donors received COH using GnRH antagonist or short GnRH agonist protocols.

Key words: GnRH agonist/GnRH antagonist/IVF/oocyte donation/ovarian stimulation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.