Lactobacillus for Luteal Phase Support

Author(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Di Guardo ◽  
Habib Midassi ◽  
Annalisa Racca ◽  
Herman Tournaye ◽  
Michel De Vos ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Nathalie F. Wang ◽  
Leif Bungum ◽  
Sven O. Skouby

Abstract The need for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI is well established. A large effort has been made in the attempt to identify the optimal type, start, route, dosage and duration of luteal phase support for IVF/ICSI and frozen embryo transfer. These questions are further complicated by the different types of stimulation protocols and ovulation triggers used in ART. The aim of this review is to supply a comprehensive overview of the available types of luteal phase support, and the indications for their use. A review of the literature was carried out in the effort to find the optimal luteal phase support regimen with regards to pregnancy related outcomes and short and long term safety. The results demonstrate that vaginal, intramuscular, subcutaneous and rectal progesterone are equally effective as luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI. GnRH agonists and oral dydrogesterone are new and promising treatment modalities but more research is needed. hCG and estradiol are not recommended for luteal phase support. More research is needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in frozen embryo transfer cycles, but progesterone has been shown to improve live birth rate in some studies. Luteal phase support should be commenced between the evening of the day of oocyte retrieval, and day three after oocyte retrieval and it should be continued at least until the day of positive pregnancy test. So, in conclusion still more large and well-designed RCT’s are needed to establish the most optimal luteal phase support in each stimulation protocol, and especially in frozen embryo transfer.


2016 ◽  
Vol 295 (1) ◽  
pp. 239-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afsoon Zarei ◽  
Parastoo Sohail ◽  
Mohammad Ebrahim Parsanezhad ◽  
Saeed Alborzi ◽  
Alamtaj Samsami ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Safrai ◽  
S Hertsberg ◽  
A Be Meir ◽  
B Reubinoff ◽  
T Imbar ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Can luteal oral Dydrogesterone (Duphaston) supplementation in an antagonist cycle after a lone GnRH agonist trigger rescue the luteal phase, allowing the possibility to peruse with fresh embryo transfer? Summary answer Functionality of the luteal phase in an antagonist cycle after a lone GnRH agonist trigger can be restored by adding Duphaston to conventional luteal support. What is known already Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is dramatically reduced when using antagonist cycle with lone GnRH agonist trigger before ovum pick up. This trigger induces short luteinizing hormone (LH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) peaks, associated with reduced progesterone and estrogen levels during the luteal phase. They cause an inadequate luteal phase and a significantly reduced implantation rate leading to a freeze all practice in those cycles. Study design, size, duration A retrospective cohort study. The study group (n = 123) included women that underwent in vitro fertilization cycles from January 2017 to May 2020. Patients received a GnRH-antagonist with a lone GnRH-agonist trigger due to imminent OSHH. The control group (n = 374) included patients under 35 years old that, during the same time period, underwent a standard antagonist protocol with a dual trigger of a GnRH-agonist and hCG. Participants/materials, setting, methods Study patients were given Dydrogesterone (Duphaston) in addition to micronized progesterone vaginal pills (Utrogestan) for luteal support (Duphaston group). Controls were treated conventionally with Utrogestan for luteal phase support (hCG group). The outcomes measured were pregnancy rate and OHSS events. Main results and the role of chance Our study was the first to evaluate the addition of Duphaston to standard luteal phase support in an antagonist cycle triggered by a lone GnRH agonist before a fresh embryo transfer. The mean number of oocytes retrieved and estradiol plasma levels were significantly higher in the Duphaston group than in the hCG group (16.9 ±7.7 vs. 10.8 ± 5.3 and 11658 ± 5280 pmol/L vs. 6048 ± 3059 pmol/L, respectively). The fertilization rate was comparable between the two groups. The mean number of embryos transferred and the clinical pregnancy rate were also comparable between groups (1.5 ± 0.6 vs 1.5 ± 0.5 and 46.3% vs 40.9%, respectively). No OHSS event was reported in either group. Limitations, reasons for caution This retrospective study may carry an inherent selection and information bias, derived from medical record coding. An additional limitation was the choice of physician for the lone GnRH trigger, which may have introduced a selection bias and another potential caveat was the relatively small sample size of our study groups. Wider implications of the findings: The addition of Duphaston to conventional luteal support could effectively salvage the luteal phase without increasing the risk for OHSS. This enables, to peruse in those cycle, with fresh embryo transfer, avoiding the need to freeze all the embryos and postponed embryo transfer. Leading to lower psychological burden and costs. Trial registration number 0632–20-HMO


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document