Clinical study of hCG, GnRH-a and conventional luteal during support protocols during antagonist protoco
Wang Yifan ZhangXinhui Lujing et al
Department of Reproductive Medicine, Handan Central Hospital, Hebei, Handan 056000, China; 2. Department of Urology, Handan Central Hospital, Hebei, Handan 056000, China)
Abstract: 【Abstract 】 Objective To compare the e?ects and pregnancy outcomes of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist (GnRH-a) and conventional luteal support protocol during antagonist protocol for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI- ET) assisted pregnancy, and to explore the more suitable luteal support protocol. Method A retrospective study was conducted. A total of 153 patients who underwent IVF/ICSI-ET assisted pregnancy with theantagonist protocol at Handan Central Hospital from January 2018 to December 2019 were selected. The patients were divided into the conventional luteal support group (n=49), the hCG luteal support group (n=50) and the GnRH-a luteal support group (n=54). Patients in the conventional luteal support group were given the conventional luteal support protocol, patients in the hCG luteal support group were given the hCG luteal support protocol on the basis of conventional luteal support, patients in the GnRH-a luteal support group were given the GnRH-a luteal support protocol on the basis of conventional luteal support. The clinical pregnancy rates, embryo implantation rates, ectopic pregnancy rates, abortion rates, live birth rates and incidence of moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) were compared among the three groups. Statistical analysis were performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and χ2 test. ResultThe clinical pregnancy rates in the hCG luteal support group and the GnRH-a luteal support group were signi?cantly higher than that in the conventional luteal support group [52.00% (26/50), 51.85% (28/54) vs 30.61% (15/49), with χ2 values of 4.666 and 4.765, respectively, all P<0.05]. Similarly, the live birth rates in the hCG luteal support group and GnRH-a luteal support group were also signi?cantly higher than that in the conventional luteal support group [48.00% (24/50), 46.30% (25/54) vs 24.49% (12/49), with χ2 values of 5.911 and 5.307, respectively, all P<0.05]. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates between the hCG luteal support group and GnRH-a luteal support group (P>0.05). There were no statistically signi?cant di?erences in the embryo implantation rates, ectopic pregnancy rates, abortion rates and the incidence of moderate to severe OHSS among the three groups (P>0.05). Conclusion The e?ect ofthe hCG and GnRH-a luteal support protocol applied to the antagonist protocol for IVF/ICSI-ET assisted pregnancy is comparable. Compared with the conventional luteal support protocol, it can increase the clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates.
王一凡 张皙卉 卢静 黄少鹏. hCG、GnRH-a及常规黄体支持方案应用于拮抗剂方案的临床研究[J]. 发育医学电子杂志, 2025, 13(6): 435-440.
Wang Yifan ZhangXinhui Lujing et al. Clinical study of hCG, GnRH-a and conventional luteal during support protocols during antagonist protoco. Journal of Developmental Medicine(Electronic Version), 2025, 13(6): 435-440.
2025, Vol. 13 
