Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of daily vaginal progesterone gel plus weekly intramuscular progesterone with daily intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in single, autologous euploid frozen-thawed embryo transfers

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare outcomes between daily intramuscular progesterone (IMP) and daily vaginal progesterone (VP) gel plus weekly intramuscular hydroxyprogesterone caproate (IMHPC) for luteal phase support (LPS) in single, autologous euploid frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers (FBTs) following artificial endometrial preparation (EP).

Methods

The retrospective cohort study included 767 single, autologous FBTs from 731 patients between January 2015 and March 2018. LPS was performed either with IMP (100 mg/day) or with VP gel (90 mg, twice daily) plus IMHPC (250 mg/week). Oral estrogen was prescribed in combination of both regimes. Oral estrogen was discontinued following the visualization of fetal cardiac activity on ultrasound and progesterone at 10 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes included implantation, clinical pregnancy, and multiple pregnancy rates.

Results

Patient characteristics did not differ in LPS regimes. Of 767 FBTs, 608 had IMP (100 mg/day) for LPS and 159 had VP gel (90 mg, twice daily) plus IMHPC (250 mg/week) for LPS. The live birth rate was 51.8% and 50.3%, respectively (p = 0.737, OR 0.94, 95%CI 0.66–1.33). The implantation rate was 62.7% and 64.2%, respectively (p = 0.730, OR 1.06, 95%CI 0.74–1.53). The clinical pregnancy rates were also similar in both groups (59.5% vs. 61.6%, respectively, p = 0.631, OR 1.09, 95%CI 0.76–1.56).

Conclusions

We did not observe significant differences in the rates of live birth, implantation, and clinical pregnancy between daily IMP and daily VP gel plus weekly IMHPC for LPS in single, autologous euploid FBTs after artificial EP.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. European IVFMC. European Society of Human R, embryology, Kupka MS, D’Hooghe T, Ferraretti AP, et al. assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2011: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):233–48.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blockeel C, Drakopoulos P, Santos-Ribeiro S, Polyzos NP, Tournaye H. A fresh look at the freeze-all protocol: a SWOT analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(3):491–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Haouzi D, Assou S, Mahmoud K, Tondeur S, Reme T, Hedon B, et al. Gene expression profile of human endometrial receptivity: comparison between natural and stimulated cycles for the same patients. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(6):1436–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lan VT, Tuan PH, Canh LT, Tuong HM, Howles CM. Progesterone supplementation during cryopreserved embryo transfer cycles: efficacy and convenience of two vaginal formulations. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17(3):318–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ghobara T, Gelbaya TA, Ayeleke RO. Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;(7):CD003414.

  7. Groenewoud ER, Cantineau AE, Kollen BJ, Macklon NS, Cohlen BJ. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23(2):255–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Groenewoud ER, Cohlen BJ, Al-Oraiby A, Brinkhuis EA, Broekmans FJ, de Bruin JP, et al. A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of modified natural versus artificial cycle for cryo-thawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(7):1483–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Greco E, Litwicka K, Arrivi C, Varricchio MT, Caragia A, Greco A, et al. The endometrial preparation for frozen-thawed euploid blastocyst transfer: a prospective randomized trial comparing clinical results from natural modified cycle and exogenous hormone stimulation with GnRH agonist. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(7):873–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Lightman A, Kol S, Itskovitz-Eldor J. A prospective randomized study comparing intramuscular with intravaginal natural progesterone in programmed thaw cycles. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(10):2596–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tavaniotou A, Smitz J, Bourgain C, Devroey P. Comparison between different routes of progesterone administration as luteal phase support in infertility treatments. Hum Reprod Update. 2000;6(2):139–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nahoul K, Dehennin L, Jondet M, Roger M. Profiles of plasma estrogens, progesterone and their metabolites after oral or vaginal administration of estradiol or progesterone. Maturitas. 1993;16(3):185–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yanushpolsky E, Hurwitz S, Greenberg L, Racowsky C, Hornstein M. Crinone vaginal gel is equally effective and better tolerated than intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(7):2596–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kahraman S, Karagozoglu SH, Karlikaya G. The efficiency of progesterone vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase supplementation in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: a prospective clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(2):761–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaser DJ, Ginsburg ES, Missmer SA, Correia KF, Racowsky C. Intramuscular progesterone versus 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support for day 3 cryopreserved embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1464–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Silverberg KM, Vaughn TC, Hansard LJ, Burger NZ, Minter T. Vaginal (Crinone 8%) gel vs. intramuscular progesterone in oil for luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: a large prospective trial. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(2):344–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang Y, He Y, Zhao X, Ji X, Hong Y, Wang Y, et al. Crinone gel for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: a prospective randomized clinical trial in the Chinese population. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0133027.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Gibbons WE, Toner JP, Hamacher P, Kolm P. Experience with a novel vaginal progesterone preparation in a donor oocyte program. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(1):96–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Berger BM, Phillips JA. Pregnancy outcomes in oocyte donation recipients: vaginal gel versus intramuscular injection progesterone replacement. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29(3):237–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Dal Prato L, Bianchi L, Cattoli M, Tarozzi N, Flamigni C, Borini A. Vaginal gel versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase supplementation: a prospective randomized trial. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;16(3):361–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Devine K, Richter KS, Widra EA, McKeeby JL. Vitrified blastocyst transfer cycles with the use of only vaginal progesterone replacement with endometrin have inferior ongoing pregnancy rates: results from the planned interim analysis of a three-arm randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(2):266–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Feinberg EC, Beltsos AN, Nicolaou E, Marut EL, Uhler ML. Endometrin as luteal phase support in assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1):174–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Veleva Z, Orava M, Nuojua-Huttunen S, Tapanainen JS, Martikainen H. Factors affecting the outcome of frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2013;28(9):2425–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee E, Illingworth P, Wilton L, Chambers GM. The clinical effectiveness of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy in all 24 chromosomes (PGD-A): systematic review. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(2):473–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Forman EJ, Tao X, Ferry KM, Taylor D, Treff NR, Scott RT, Jr. Single embryo transfer with comprehensive chromosome screening results in improved ongoing pregnancy rates and decreased miscarriage rates. Hum Reprod 2012;27(4):1217–1222.

  26. Roque M, Valle M, Guimaraes F, Sampaio M, Geber S. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(5):1190–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Evans J, Hannan NJ, Edgell TA, Vollenhoven BJ, Lutjen PJ, Osianlis T, et al. Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer: backing clinical decisions with scientific and clinical evidence. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(6):808–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Coates A, Kung A, Mounts E, Hesla J, Bankowski B, Barbieri E, et al. Optimal euploid embryo transfer strategy, fresh versus frozen, after preimplantation genetic screening with next generation sequencing: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(3):723–30 e3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Miles RA, Paulson RJ, Lobo RA, Press MF, Dahmoush L, Sauer MV. Pharmacokinetics and endometrial tissue levels of progesterone after administration by intramuscular and vaginal routes: a comparative study. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(3):485–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cicinelli E, de Ziegler D, Bulletti C, Matteo MG, Schonauer LM, Galantino P. Direct transport of progesterone from vagina to uterus. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95(3):403–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Chantilis SJ, Zeitoun KM, Patel SI, Johns DA, Madziar VA, McIntire DD. Use of Crinone vaginal progesterone gel for luteal support in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(5):823–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bahceci Fulya Assisted Reproduction Center, Hakki Yeten St. No:11, Sisli, 34394, Istanbul, Turkey

    Mehmet Resit Asoglu, Lale Susan Karakis, Meral Gultomruk & Mustafa Bahceci

  2. Bahceci Umut Assisted Reproduction Center, Mahir Iz st. No: 31, Uskudar, 34662, Istanbul, Turkey

    Cem Celik & Necati Findikli

Authors
  1. Mehmet Resit Asoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cem Celik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lale Susan Karakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Necati Findikli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meral Gultomruk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mustafa Bahceci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Resit Asoglu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asoglu, M.R., Celik, C., Karakis, L.S. et al. Comparison of daily vaginal progesterone gel plus weekly intramuscular progesterone with daily intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support in single, autologous euploid frozen-thawed embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 36, 1481–1487 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01482-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-019-01482-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation