PMID 8224262 8224262 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56277-3 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56277-3 Hamilton et al. 1993, Hamilton 1993
Cite this article
Hamilton, C. J., Jaroudi, K. A., & Sieck, U. V. (1993). The value of luteal support with progesterone in gonadotropin-induced cycles. Fertility and sterility, 60(5), 786-790. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56277-3
Hamilton CJ, Jaroudi KA, Sieck UV. The value of luteal support with progesterone in gonadotropin-induced cycles. Fertil Steril. 1993;60(5):786-790. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56277-3
Hamilton, C. J., et al. "The value of luteal support with progesterone in gonadotropin-induced cycles." Fertility and sterility, vol. 60, no. 5, 1993, pp. 786-790.
To evaluate the efficacy of oral micronized progesterone compared with IM progesterone in oil for luteal support in patients undergoing IVF who are treated with a GnRH agonist. Randomized prospective clinical trial. University-based IVF center. PATIENT(S): Women <40 years of age who were undergoing IVF with luteal GnRH pituitary down-regulation. INTERVENTION(S): Patients were randomized to receive either oral micronized progesterone (200 mg three times daily) or IM progesterone (50 mg daily). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Progesterone levels at standardized days 21 and 28, and pregnancy and embryo implantation rates. RESULT(S): Day 21 progesterone levels were 77.6+/-13.2 ng/mL in the IM group and 81.5+/-16.2 ng/mL in the oral group. Day 28 progesterone levels were 76.3+/-15.0 ng/mL in the IM group and 53.6+/-10.1 ng/mL in the oral group. The clinical pregnancy rates were 57.9% and 45.8% for the IM and oral groups, respectively. The implantation rate per embryo was significantly higher in the IM group (40.9%) than in the oral group (18.1%). CONCLUSION(S): When used according to our protocols, oral progesterone and IM progesterone result in comparable levels of circulating progesterone. However, oral progesterone results in a reduced implantation rate per embryo.
To compare the effectiveness of i.m. P and 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17-HPC) for luteal phase support, in patients undergoing IVF-ET cycles. Prospective, randomized study. Patients undergoing IVF-ET in our Centers. PATIENT(S): The inclusion criteria were the use of GnRH down-regulation and aged <40 years. INTERVENTION(S): A total of 300 cycles were randomly treated with either 17-HPC (341 mg every 3 days) or P (50 mg daily). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The outcomes of IVF in both study groups were evaluated for biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage, clinical pregnancy, and ongoing pregnancy. RESULT(S): No difference was found in the main outcome parameters considered. CONCLUSION(S): Although the results of the study encourage the use of 17-HPC for luteal phase support in patients undergoing IVF-ET program, more studies are necessary to support the hypothesis that it can replace i.m. P-in-oil.
To investigate whether uterine contractility at the time of embryo transfer (ET) can be reduced by early onset of luteal support with progesterone administered vaginally. Prospective analysis. Assisted reproduction unit. PATIENT(S): Eighty-four women undergoing 84 GnRH-a and FSH/hCG cycles for IVF-ET were studied. INTERVENTION(S): Vaginal progesterone was randomly started on the day of oocyte retrieval (group A, n = 43) or on the evening of ET (group B, n = 41). On the day of hCG administration and just before ET, 2-minute sagittal uterine scans were obtained by ultrasound and digitized with an image analysis system for assessing uterine contraction frequency. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Uterine contraction frequency. RESULT(S): Whereas uterine contraction frequency was similar in both groups on the day of hCG (4.6 +/- 0.3 and 4.5 +/- 0.3 contractions per minute, respectively), only women in group A showed decreased uterine contraction frequency on the day of ET (2.8 +/- 0.2 vs. 4.2 +/- 0.3 contractions per minute). CONCLUSION(S): Vaginal progesterone administration starting on the day of oocyte retrieval induced a decrease in uterine contraction frequency on the day of ET as compared with preovulatory values. Uterine relaxation before ET is likely to improve IVF-ET outcome by avoiding the displacement of embryos from the uterine cavity.
To determine whether the use of luteal phase support improves pregnancy rate (PR) in infertility. A meta-analysis of randomized trials of luteal phase support. Search of the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE data base from 1971 using the words luteal, pregnancy, human, and comparative. Bibliography of relevant articles, reviews, and abstracts of scientific meetings were hand searched. All randomized controlled trials of luteal phase support in infertility were included. Luteal phase support for recurrent abortion and nonrandomized trials were excluded. The common odds ratio was calculated for each intervention using the Mantel-Haentzel test. Homogeneity of treatment effect was evaluated using the Breslow-Day test. Pregnancy per cycle, rate of spontaneous abortion, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate. Eighteen trials met the above criteria. Human chorionic gonadotropin improved PRs in IVF when GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) was used (n = 151) and was superior to P (n = 352). Its benefit in all IVF cycles, however, was not established because of significant heterogeneity of treatment effect. Progesterone improved the PR in all IVF cycles (n = 457). No significant reduction in spontaneous abortion was noted with luteal support (n = 200). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurred in 5% of patients with hCG. Combination of data from trials of luteal support with other infertility therapies was not possible because of the differences in patient populations. The meta-analysis supports the routine use of hCG in IVF cycles using a GnRH-a. Progesterone was also beneficial for luteal phase support in IVF. For other infertility therapy, however, further research is needed to evaluate the role of luteal phase support.