北京大学学报(医学版) ›› 2013, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (6): 877-881.

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

促性腺激素释放激素激动剂长方案与拮抗剂方案对体外受精治疗妊娠结局的影响

任昀,杨硕,杨蕊,李蓉△,陈新娜,王海燕,马彩虹,刘平,乔杰   

  1. (北京大学第三医院生殖医学中心,北京100191)
  • 出版日期:2013-12-18 发布日期:2013-12-18

Comparison of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist long protocol and gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist protocol in infertile women

REN Yun, YANG Shuo, YANG Rui, LI Rong△, CHEN Xin-na, WANG Hai-yan, MA Cai-hong, LIU Ping, QIAO Jie   

  1. (Center for Reproductive Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China)
  • Online:2013-12-18 Published:2013-12-18

摘要: 目的:探讨采用促性腺激素释放激素激动剂(gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist, GnRH-a)长方案和促性腺激素释放激素拮抗剂(gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist, GnRH-ant)方案促排卵对体外受精患者治疗的效果和对妊娠结局的影响。方法:对北京大学第三医院生殖医学中心2010年6月1日至2012年6月1日体外受精-胚胎移植的2 444个周期进行回顾性分析。根据促排卵方案不同将其分为:GnRH-a组(激动剂组,1 706周期)和GnRH-ant方案组(拮抗剂组,738周期),对患者的一般资料、治疗和妊娠结局进行比较。结果:患者的体重指数、年龄、不孕年限、窦卵泡数等一般情况组间比较差异均无统计学意义,人绒毛膜促性腺激素(human chorionic gonadotropin, HCG)注射日血E2激动剂组更高[(10 595±7 368)pmol/L vs. (9 087±7 035)pmol/L],Gn用药天数激动剂组更长[(12.5±1.8)d vs.(9.4±1.7)d],Gn用量更大[(3 107±1 377) IU vs. (2 084±903) IU],获卵总数激动剂组更多[(13.4±6.6 )vs. (11.8±6.4)],差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组患者移植胚胎数、卵裂率、受精率相互比较,组间差异无统计学意义,可利用胚胎数激动剂组多于拮抗剂组[(5.6±4.5)vs. (5.1±4.3)],差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两种促排卵方案的流产率、胚胎停育率、异位妊娠率和早产率、过期产率和活胎畸形率比较差异无统计学意义,但激动剂组临床妊娠率较高(44.0 % vs. 38.3%),足月分娩率亦较高(64.2% vs. 56.9%), 差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:GnRH激动剂长方案促排卵治疗临床妊娠结局和分娩结局均优于拮抗剂方案。

关键词: 促性腺素释放激素, 受精, 体外, 妊娠结局, 胚胎移植

Abstract: To compare the clinical outcomes of GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) long protocol and GnRH antagonist (GnRH-ant)protocol in vitro fertilization (IVF)-embryo transfer (ET) cycles, and to explore the optimized protocol for infertile women. Methods: From June 2010 to June 2012, 2 444 infertile women underwent their IVF cycles in Peking University Third Hospital, which were divided into 1 706 GnRH agonist long protocol and 738 GnRH antagnist protocol groups. The data of the general demographic、treatment and clinical outcome were compared between the two groups. Results: The age, body mass index(BMI), infertile duration, antral follicle count (AFC) did not reach statistical difference, the level of estradiol on the day of HCG: injection was higher in GnRH agonist group  [(10 595±7 368)pmol/L vs. (9 087±7 035) pmol/L], and the mean length of stimulation was longer in GnRH agonist group[(12.5±1.8) d vs.(9.4±1.7) d], The dose of Gn [(3 107±1 377) IU vs. (2 084±903)IU]was higher in GnRH agonist group. The number of ovum was 13.4±6.6 in GnRH agonist group and 11.8±6.4 in GnRH antagonist group. Those clinical parameters all reached statistical difference (P<0.05). The number of the transfer embryos, fertilization rate, and cleavage rate did not reach statistical difference, but the number of the embryos was 5.6±4.5 in GnRH agonist group and 5.1±4.3 in GnRH antagonist group,reached statistical difference (P<0.05). The abortion rate, embryonic death rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, preterm labor rate, postterm pregnancy rate, fatal malformations rate showed no statistical difference, but the GnRH agonist long protocol had higher pregnancy rate (44.0% vs. 38.3%), and higher term pregnancy rate (64.2% vs. 56.9%) compared with GnRH antagonist protocol, thus those parameter reached significant difference (P<0.05). Conclusion: Compared with GnRH-antagnist protocol, GnRH agonist long protocol had higher pregnancy rate and better pregnancy outcome.

Key words: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone, Fertilization in vitro, Pregnancy outcome, Embryo transfer

[1] 马会超,李军,王永清. 妊娠合并炎症性肠病的临床特点[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2024, 56(2): 260-266.
[2] 游芳凝,罗靓,刘香君,张学武,李春. 未分化结缔组织病患者的妊娠结局、疾病演变及其影响因素[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(6): 1045-1052.
[3] 孙希雅,陈艺璐,曾琳,闫丽盈,乔杰,李蓉,智旭. 不孕女性维生素D水平与抗苗勒氏管激素的相关性及对妊娠结局的预测[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2023, 55(1): 167-173.
[4] 张春梅,杨蕊,李蓉,乔杰,王海宁,王颖. 46XX-17α-羟化酶缺乏症助孕成功1例[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2022, 54(4): 751-755.
[5] 岳兆国,张海东,杨静文,侯建霞. 数字化评估CAD/CAM个性化基台与成品基台影响粘接剂残留的体外研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2021, 53(1): 69-75.
[6] 许志锋,凌云鹏,崔仲奇,赵鸿,宫一辰,傅元豪,杨航,万峰. 经左胸前外侧微创冠脉搭桥治疗冠心病多支病变[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2020, 52(5): 863-869.
[7] 孙文强,赵舟,高卿,韩增强,杨威,廉波,刘刚,陈生龙,陈彧. 非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术中桥血管血流对术后近中期预后的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(5): 851-855.
[8] 赵亮,孙丽芳,郑秀丽,刘静芳,郑蓉,王颖,杨蕊,张蕾,于丽,张晗. 体外受精-胚胎移植对早期胎盘黏着斑激酶信号通路的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2019, 51(1): 151-158.
[9] 何娜,闫盈盈,应颖秋,伊敏,么改琦,葛庆岗,翟所迪. 持续静脉血液滤过联合体外膜肺氧合治疗1例急性重症胰腺炎的万古霉素个体化治疗方案报道[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2018, 50(5): 915-920.
[10] 舒广,秦一飞,许天民. T-Scan Ⅲ系统测量咬合力的可重复性体外研究[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(3): 557-封三.
[11] 李西慧,肖锋,张思宇. 不停跳冠状动脉旁路移植术后急性肾损伤的影响因素探讨及3年随访结果[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2017, 49(1): 131-136.
[12] 任秀莲,刘平,廉颖,黄锦,郑晓英,朱亚菊,乔杰. 不同的胚胎移植管对体外受精-胚胎移植技术结局的影响[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(5): 905-909.
[13] 胡风战,原婉琼,王晓林,秦彩朋,盛正祚,杜依青,殷华奇,徐涛. 敲减CMTM3增强前列腺癌细胞系PC3迁移与侵袭能力[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(4): 594-597.
[14] 乔迪, 董艳梅, 高学军. 体外评价新型根尖倒充填材料iRoot的生物学性能[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(2): 324-329.
[15] 俞光岩, 曹彤, 邹晓晖, 张学慧, 傅歆, 彭双清, 邓旭亮, 李盛林, 刘鹤, 肖苒, 欧阳宏伟, 彭晖, 陈晓, 赵增明,王晓颖……. 基于人胚胎干细胞健康安全评价体系的构建[J]. 北京大学学报(医学版), 2016, 48(1): 1-4.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!