• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.32 no.3
• /
• pp.261-268
• /
• 2005

Objective: To compare the clinical results and pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) between GnRH antagonist cycles and GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) cycles including flare-up and long protocol in women with advanced age. Materials and Methods: Retrospective clinical study. From January 2001 to September 2003, IVF cycles of female patient 37 years over were included in this study. GnRH-a long protocol (62 cycles, 61 patients) and GnRH antagonist multi-dose flexible protocol (66 cycles, 51 patients) were compared with the control group of GnRH-a flare-up protocol (151 cycles, 138 patients). IVF cycles for non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), endometriosis III, IV and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) were excluded in this study. Clinical results such as total gonadotropin dose, serum E2 on hCG administration, the number of retrieved oocytes and the pregnancy outcomes - clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR) and live birth rate (LBR) per embryo transfer - were compared. Results: There were significant differences in the total dose of gonadotropin (GnRH-a flare-up vs. GnRH-a long vs. GnRH-antagonist; 41.8 vs. 54.7 vs. 24.8), serum E2 on hCG administration (1787.2 vs. 1881.6 vs. 788.0), the numbers of retrieved oocytes (8.1 vs. 11.1 vs. 4.5) and endometrial thickness (9.1 vs. 10.4 vs. 8.0) which were significantly lower in GnRH-antagonist cycles. But pregnancy outcomes shows no significant differenced in CPR (25.0% vs. 35.8% vs. 24.5%), IR (11.7% vs. 12.3% vs. 10.1%) and LBR (15.8% vs. 28.3% vs. 15.1%) Conclusion: In women with advanced age, GnRH-antagonist cycles can result in comparable pregnancy outcomes to GnRH-a cycles including flare-up and long protocol. GnRH-a long protocol show higher CPR, IR and LBR than GnRH antagonist multi-dose flexible protocol and flare-up protocol without significant differences.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.41-48
• /
• 2007

Objective: To determine whether the presence of Y-chromosome microdeletion affects the outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) program. Methods: Fourteen couples with microdeletion in azoospermic factor (AZF)c region who attempted IVF/ICSI or cryopreserved and thawed embryo transfer cycles were enrolled. All of the men showed severe oligoasthenoteratoazoospermia (OATS) or azoospermia. As a control, 12 couples with OATS or azoospermia and having normal Y-chromosome were included. Both groups were divided into two subgroups by sperm source used in ICSI such as those who underwent testicular sperm extraction (TESE) and those used ejaculate sperm. We retrospectively analyzed our database in respect to the IVF outcomes. The outcome measures were mean number of good quality embryos, fertilization rates, implantation rates, $\beta$-hCG positive rates, early pregnancy loss and live birth rates. Results: Mean number of good quality embryos, implantation rates, $\beta$-hCG positive rates, early pregnancy loss rates and live birth rates were not significantly different between Y-chromosome microdeletion and control groups. But, fertilization rates in the Y-chromosome microdeletion group (61.1%) was significantly lower than that of control group (79.8%, p=0.003). Also, the subgroup underwent TESE and having AZFc microdeletion showed significantly lower fertilization rates (52.9%) than the subgroup underwent TESE and having normal Y-chromosome (79.5%, p=0.008). Otherwise, in the subgroups used ejaculate sperm, fertilization rates were showed tendency toward lower in couples having Y-chromosome microdeletion than couples with normal Y-chromosome. (65.5% versus 79.9%, p=0.082). But, there was no significance statistically. Conclusions: In IVF/ICSI cycles using TESE sperm, presence of V-chromosome microdeletion may adversely affect to fertilization ability of injected sperm. But, in cases of ejaculate sperm available for ICSI, IVF outcome was not affected by presence of Y-chromosome AZFc microdeletion. However, more larger scaled prospective study was needed to support our results.