Intramuscular progesterone versus 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support following blastocyst cryopreserved single embryo transfer: a retrospective cohort study.
Crinone
Cryo embryo transfer
IVF
Intramuscular progesterone
Luteal support
Vaginal progesterone
Journal
Fertility research and practice
ISSN: 2054-7099
Titre abrégé: Fertil Res Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101671668
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
25
03
2020
accepted:
25
06
2020
entrez:
7
7
2020
pubmed:
7
7
2020
medline:
7
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal support in cryopreserved embryo transfer (CET) has been the subject of much debate. While most published research has pertained to day 3 transfers, recent data on blastocyst CET has suggested that intramuscular progesterone (IMP) is superior to twice daily vaginal Endometrin suppositories for luteal phase support, resulting in significantly higher ongoing pregnancy rates. This study aimed to determine whether IMP is similarly superior to 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support following blastocyst CET. Autologous and donor oocyte blastocyst cryopreserved single embryo transfer (SET) cycles from January 2014-January 2019 utilizing either 50 mg IMP daily or 90 mg 8% Crinone gel twice daily for luteal support were included. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included biochemical pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, and clinical pregnancy. All analyses were adjusted a priori for oocyte age. Log-binomial regression analysis was performed with differences in outcomes reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). A total of 1710 cycles were included, of which 1594 utilized IMP and 116 utilized 8% Crinone gel. Demographic and cycles characteristics were similar between the two groups. Compared to cycles utilizing IMP, cycles utilizing Crinone gel resulted in similar rates of live birth (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.73-1.13), biochemical pregnancy (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65-1.92), spontaneous abortion (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.90-2.20), and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.17). Compared to cryopreserved blastocyst SET cycles utilizing IMP for luteal support, cycles utilizing 8% Crinone gel resulted in similar likelihood of live birth.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal support in cryopreserved embryo transfer (CET) has been the subject of much debate. While most published research has pertained to day 3 transfers, recent data on blastocyst CET has suggested that intramuscular progesterone (IMP) is superior to twice daily vaginal Endometrin suppositories for luteal phase support, resulting in significantly higher ongoing pregnancy rates. This study aimed to determine whether IMP is similarly superior to 8% Crinone vaginal gel for luteal phase support following blastocyst CET.
METHODS
METHODS
Autologous and donor oocyte blastocyst cryopreserved single embryo transfer (SET) cycles from January 2014-January 2019 utilizing either 50 mg IMP daily or 90 mg 8% Crinone gel twice daily for luteal support were included. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included biochemical pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, and clinical pregnancy. All analyses were adjusted a priori for oocyte age. Log-binomial regression analysis was performed with differences in outcomes reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 1710 cycles were included, of which 1594 utilized IMP and 116 utilized 8% Crinone gel. Demographic and cycles characteristics were similar between the two groups. Compared to cycles utilizing IMP, cycles utilizing Crinone gel resulted in similar rates of live birth (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.73-1.13), biochemical pregnancy (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.65-1.92), spontaneous abortion (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.90-2.20), and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.17).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to cryopreserved blastocyst SET cycles utilizing IMP for luteal support, cycles utilizing 8% Crinone gel resulted in similar likelihood of live birth.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32626594
doi: 10.1186/s40738-020-00079-y
pii: 79
pmc: PMC7329474
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
10Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsMH is an author for UpToDate and is on the medical advisory board for WinFertility. No other authors state a conflict of interest.
Références
Hum Reprod. 1988 Jul;3(5):585-90
pubmed: 3139698
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jun;19(3):258-65
pubmed: 17495643
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(2):554-69
pubmed: 19362305
Reprod Biomed Online. 2008 Mar;16(3):361-7
pubmed: 18339258
Fertil Steril. 2009 Jul;92(1):163-9
pubmed: 19362303
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007 Oct;24(10):467-70
pubmed: 17721816
Hum Reprod. 2017 Nov 1;32(11):2234-2242
pubmed: 29025055
Hum Reprod. 2014 Aug;29(8):1706-11
pubmed: 24847018
Fertil Steril. 1992 Sep;58(3):563-8
pubmed: 1521653
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1972 Apr 15;112(8):1061-7
pubmed: 5017636
Fertil Steril. 1998 Mar;69(3):419-24
pubmed: 9531870
Fertil Steril. 1993 Jul;60(1):26-33
pubmed: 8513955
Hum Reprod. 2005 Mar;20(3):616-21
pubmed: 15608037
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jul 07;(7):CD009154
pubmed: 26148507
Fertil Steril. 2005 Oct;84(4):1023-6
pubmed: 16213865
Fertil Steril. 2010 Jul;94(2):761-3
pubmed: 19939363
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD006359
pubmed: 20091592
Fertil Steril. 2012 Feb;97(2):344-8
pubmed: 22188983
Hum Reprod. 2000 Jun;15(6):1284-8
pubmed: 10831556
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973 Mar 15;115(6):759-65
pubmed: 4688578
Fertil Steril. 2009 Jun;91(6):2445-50
pubmed: 18555224
Fertil Steril. 2010 Dec;94(7):2596-9
pubmed: 20347079
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1973 Dec 1;117(7):987-90
pubmed: 4759836
Fertil Steril. 2012 Dec;98(6):1464-9
pubmed: 22959457
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Jun;176(6):1262-7; discussion 1267-9
pubmed: 9215183
Maturitas. 1993 May;16(3):185-202
pubmed: 8515718
Fertil Steril. 2010 Sep;94(4):1296-301
pubmed: 19608168
Fertil Steril. 1981 Nov;36(5):565-72
pubmed: 7308501
Hum Reprod. 1999 Oct;14(10):2596-9
pubmed: 10527993
Fertil Steril. 1982 Sep;38(3):312-7
pubmed: 7117557
Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Jan;129(1):125-37
pubmed: 2910056
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2010 Aug;27(8):437-9
pubmed: 20532975
Fertil Steril. 2018 Feb;109(2):266-275
pubmed: 29338855