4.2 Article

Increased responsiveness may be associated with tripronuclear embryos in both conventional in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist long protocols: A self-matched observational study

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2010.01313.x

关键词

conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF); intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI); tripronuclear (3PN) embryos

资金

  1. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [01-PJ10-PG6-01GN13-0002]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: In this self-matched observational study, the factors associated with the presence of tripronuclear (3PN) embryos, in conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles using gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist long protocols, were investigated. Material & Methods: Clinical parameters were analyzed in 202 consecutive IVF-IVF or ICSI-ICSI matched cycles. The differences between the former and latter cycles were evaluated and compared according to the presence of 3PN embryos: group A [3PN (-) followed by 3PN (-)]; group B [3PN (-) followed by 3PN (+)]; group C [3PN (+) followed by 3PN (-)]; group D [3PN (+) followed by 3PN (+)]. Results: For the IVF-IVF cycles, the E-2 on human chorionic gonadotropin injection day and the number of retrieved oocytes were increased in the 3PN (+) cycles compared to the 3PN (-) cycles of Groups B (2165.2 +/- 1423.3 pg/mL vs 1468.2 +/- 796.2 pg/mL, P = 0.016; 10.4 +/- 9.1 vs 7.2 +/- 5.7, P = 0.010) and C (2382.7 +/- 1214.5 pg/mL vs 1553.0 +/- 1119.6 pg/mL, P = 0.004; 13.1 +/- 9.1 vs 9.1 +/- 7.0, P < 0.001), while these outcome variables did not differ when the former and latter cycles in Groups A and D were compared. These trends were observed in the ICSI-ICSI cycles. Conclusions: An increased responsiveness, based on the higher E-2 and greater number of retrieved oocytes, may be associated with the presence of 3PN in both conventional IVF and ICSI cycles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据