Skip to main content

Comparison of GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols in normoresponder patients who had IVF-ICSI

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics volume 288, pages 1413–1416 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

To measure the estradiol (E2) and progesterone levels on day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and to assess follicular development, pregnancy rates and IVF-ICSI outcomes comparing gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and antagonist protocols.

Methods

A total 195 women were included in the study. The patients were treated with agonist or antagonist protocol according to the clinician’s and patient’s preference. GnRH agonist and antagonists were administered to 77 and 118 patients, respectively.

Results

Retrieved oocyte number (RON), metaphase two oocyte number (MON), E2 and progesteron levels on day of hCG, and fertilization rate were significantly higher in agonist group than antagonist group (p < 0.05). Implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) were significantly higher in antagonist group than agonist group (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between both groups in relation with total follicle stimulating hormone (FSH).

Conclusion

GnRH agonist treatment seems to be associated with higher serum E2 and progesterone levels and resulted in lower pregnancy rates than antagonist treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Fleming R, Adam AH, Barlow DH, Black WP, MacNaughton MC, Coutts JR (1982) A new systematic treatment for infertile women with abnormal hormone profiles. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 89(1):80–83

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Akman MA, Erden HF, Tosun SB, Bayazit N, Aksoy E, Bahceci M (2001) Comparison of agonistic flare-up-protocol and antagonistic multiple dose protocol in ovarian stimulation of poor responders: results of a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 16(5):868–870

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mitwally MFM, Bhakoo HS, Crickard K, Sullivan MW, Batt RE, Yeh J (2006) Estradiol production during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation correlates with treatment outcome in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 86(3):588–596

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kara M, Kutlu T, Sofuoglu K, Devranoglu B, Cetinkaya T (2012) Association between serum estradiol level on the hCG administration day and IVF-ICSI outcome. Iranian J Reprod Med 10(1):53–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Nikolettos N, Al-Hasani S, Felberbaum R, Demirel LC, Kupfer W, Montzka P et al (2001) Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol: a novel method of ovarian stimulation in poor responders. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 97(2):202–207

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M (2002) GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction. A Cochrane review. Hum Reprod 17(4):874–885

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kolibianakis EM, Collins J, Tarlatzis BC, Devroey P, Diedrich K, Griesinger G (2006) Among patients treated for IVF with gonadotrophins and GnRH analogues, is the probability of live birth dependent on the type of analogue used? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 12(6):651–671

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, Abou-Setta AM (2011) GnRH antagonists are safer than agonists: an update of a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod Update 17(4):435

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Huang SY, Huang HY, Yu HT, Wang HS, Chen CK, Lee CL (2011) Low-dose GnRH antagonist protocol is as effective as the long GnRH agonist protocol in unselected patients undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 50(4):432–435

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kara M, Kutlu T, Sofuoglu K (2011) Highly-purified, urinary follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH vs. HP-uFSH) in the polycystic ovary syndrom patients who had antagonist cycle with in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Turkiye Klinikleri. J Med Sci 31(4):775–779

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Land JA, Yarmolinskaya MI, Dumoulin JC, Evers JL (1996) High-dose human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation in poor responders does not improve in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 65(5):961–965

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Karande V, Morris R, Rinehart J, Miller C, Rao R, Gleicher N (1997) Limited success using the “flare” protocol in poor responders in cycles with low basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 67(5):900–903

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Valbuena D, Martin J, de Pablo JL, Remohi J, Pellicer A, Simon C (2001) Increasing levels of estradiol are deleterious to embryonic implantation because they directly affect the embryo. Fertil Steril 76(5):962–968

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Elnashar AM (2010) Progesterone rise on the day of HCG administration (premature luteinization) in IVF: an overdue update. J Assist Reprod Genet 27(4):149–155

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Basir GS (2001) O WS, Ng EH, Ho PC. Morphometric analysis of peri-implantation endometrium in patients having excessively high estradiol concentrations after ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 16(3):435–440

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Mangalraj AM, Muthukumar K, Aleyamma T, Kamath MS, George K (2009) Blastocyst stage transfer vs cleavage stage embryo transfer. J Hum Reprod Sci 2(1):23–26

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gardner DK, Surrey E, Minjarez D, Leitz A, Stevens J, Schoolcraft WB (2004) Single blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial. Fertil Steril 81(3):551–555

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Bozok University Medical Faculty, Adnan Menderes Boulevard No 44, 66200, Yozgat, Turkey

    Mustafa Kara

  2. Acibadem In Vitro Fertilization Center, Kayseri, Turkey

    Turgut Aydin & Betul Ozdemir

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karadeniz Technical University Medical Faculty, Trabzon, Turkey

    Turhan Aran

  4. Kayseri In Vitro Fertilization Center, Kayseri, Turkey

    Nurettin Turktekin

Authors
  1. Mustafa Kara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Turgut Aydin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Turhan Aran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nurettin Turktekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Betul Ozdemir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Kara.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kara, M., Aydin, T., Aran, T. et al. Comparison of GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols in normoresponder patients who had IVF-ICSI. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288, 1413–1416 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2903-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-2903-z

Keywords

  • GnRH agonist
  • GnRH antagonist
  • IVF-ICSI
  • Pregnancy