English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Both oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) and estradiol (E 2 ) valerate have been used to schedule gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles and, consequently, laboratory activities. However, there are no studies comparing treatment outcomes directly between these two pretreatment methods. This randomized controlled trial was aimed at finding differences in ongoing pregnancy rates between GnRH antagonist IVF cycles scheduled with OCPs or E 2  valerate. Methods Between January and May 2012, one hundred consecutive patients (nonobese, regularly cycling women 18–38 years with normal day 3 hormone levels and &lt;3 previous IVF/ICSI attempts) undergoing IVF with the GnRH antagonist protocol were randomized to either the OCP or E 2  pretreatment arms, with no restrictions such as blocking or stratification. Authors involved in data collection and analysis were blinded to group assignment. Fifty patients received OCP (30 μg ethinyl E 2 /150 μg levonorgestrel) for 12–16 days from day 1 or 2, and stimulation was started 5 days after stopping OCP. Similarly, 50 patients received 4 mg/day oral E 2  valerate from day 20 for 5–12 days, until the day before starting stimulation. Results Pretreatment with OCP (mean±SD, 14.5±1.7 days) was significantly longer than with E 2  (7.8±1.9 days). Stimulation and embryological characteristics were similar. Ongoing pregnancy rates (46.0% vs. 44.0%; risk difference, –2.0% [95% CI –21.2% to 17.3%]), as well as implantation (43.5% vs. 47.4%), clinical pregnancy (50.0% vs. 48.0%), clinical miscarriage (7.1% vs. 7.7%), and live birth (42.0% vs. 40.0%) rates were comparable between groups. Conclusions This is the first study to directly compare these two methods of cycle scheduling in GnRH antagonist cycles. Our results fail to show statistically significant differences in ongoing pregnancy rates between pretreatment with OCP and E 2  for IVF with the GnRH antagonist protocol. Although the study is limited by its sample size, our results may contribute to a future meta-analysis. An interesting future direction would be to extend our study to women with decreased ovarian reserve, as these are the patients in whom an increase in oocyte yield—due to the hypothetical beneficial effect of steroid pretreatment on follicular synchronization—could more easily be demonstrated. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01501448

Cycle scheduling for in vitro fertilization with oral contraceptive pills versus oral estradiol valerate: a randomized, controlled trial