Hormonal stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A comparison of fertilization rates and cytogenetic findings in unfertilized oocytes
- 26 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to compare fertilization and aneuploidy rates after two stimulation protocols in an IVF program.
This was a retrospective study.
The study took place in the IVF laboratory of an Infertility Department.
In 349 treatment cycles, clomiphene citrate (CC) and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) were used in one group (N =233) and hMG after treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) in two other groups (long protocol): goserelin (N =73) and buserelin (N =43). Cytogenetic analysis was performed on all unfertilized oocytes in both groups.
Fertilization rates were significantly higher in the GnRHa/hMG group than in the CC/hMG group, but cleavage rates and embryo quality were not different. Of 736 oocytes prepared for cytogenetic analysis, 256 were karyotyped: 172 were found to be euploid and 84 aneuploid. More oocytes were aneuploid in the GnRHa/hMG group than in the CC/hMG group and this difference was statistically different after analysis of the data using a specially designed mathematical model.
If no selection against chromosomally abnormal oocytes takes place at the time of fertilization, more abnormal oocytes are harvested with GnRHa/hMG protocols than with CC/hMG. If, on the other hand, there is a selection against oocytes with some chromosomal imbalance, there is no intrinsic effect of GnRH agonists on the chromosomal complement of the oocyte, and the real aneuploidy frequency in all oocytes, fertilized and unfertilized, is the same in the GnRHa/hMG and in the CC/hMG group.
Key wordsin vitro fertilization cytogenetics human oocytes gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Porter RN, Smith W, Craft IL, Abdulwahid NA and Jacobs HS: Induction of ovulation for in-vitro fertilization using buserelin and gonadotropins. Lancet 1984;2:1284–1285Google Scholar
- 3.World Health Organization: Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Semen-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1987Google Scholar
- 6.Tarkowski AK: An air-drying method for chromosome preparation from mouse eggs. Cytogenetics 1966;5:394–400Google Scholar
- 10.Boué JG, Boué A: Increased frequency of chromosomal anomalies in abortions after induced ovulation. Lancet 1973;1:679–680Google Scholar
- 12.Antoine JM, Salat-Baroux J, Alvarez S, Cornet D, Tibi C, Mandelbaum J, Plachot M: Ovarian stimulation using human menopausal gonadotrophins with or without LHRH analogues in a long protocol for in-vitro fertilization: A prospective randomized comparison. Hum Reprod 1990;5:565–569PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Maroulis GB, Emery M, Verkauf BS, Saphier A, Bernhisel M, Yeko TR: Prospective randomized study of human menotropin versus a follicular and luteal phase gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog-human menotropin stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1991;55:1157–1164PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.van de Helder AB, Helmerhorst FM, Blankhart A, Brand R, Waegemaekers C, Naaktgeboren N: Comparison of ovarian stimulation regimens for in vitro fertilization (IVF) with and without a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist: Results of a randomized study. J Vitro Fert Embryo Transfer 1990;7:358–362Google Scholar
- 16.Cummins J, Breen T, Harrison K, Shaw J, Wilson L, Hennessey J: A formula for scoring human embryo growth rates in in vitro fertilization: Its value in predicting pregnancy and in comparison with visual estimates of embryo quality. J Vitro Fert Embryo Transfer 1986;3:284–295Google Scholar