Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: https://hdl.handle.net/11000/31064
Registro completo de metadatos
Campo DC Valor Lengua/Idioma
dc.contributor.authorGuerrero, Jaime-
dc.contributor.authorCastillo, Juan Carlos-
dc.contributor.authorTen, Jorge-
dc.contributor.authorOrtiz, J.A.-
dc.contributor.authorLledó, Belén-
dc.contributor.authorOrozco-Beltran, Domingo-
dc.contributor.authorQuereda, Francisco-
dc.contributor.authorBernabeu, Andrea-
dc.contributor.authorBernabeu, Rafael-
dc.contributor.otherDepartamentos de la UMH::Salud Pública, Historia de la Ciencia y Ginecologíaes_ES
dc.date.accessioned2024-02-05T12:36:38Z-
dc.date.available2024-02-05T12:36:38Z-
dc.date.created2023-09-25-
dc.identifier.issn1472-6491-
dc.identifier.issn1472-6483-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11000/31064-
dc.description.abstractResearch Question Do live birth rates differ between recipients matched with donors using conventional ovarian stimulation versus those using random-start protocols? Design Retrospective analysis of 891 ovarian stimulations in egg donors (January-December 2018) and clinical outcomes in matched recipients (n=935). Donors commenced ovarian stimulation on day 1/3 of the menstrual cycle (n=223) or in the mid/late-follicular (n=388) or luteal phase (n=280) under a conventional antagonist protocol. Live birth rate of matched recipients was the main outcome. Results Duration of stimulation and total gonadotropins dose were comparable between conventional versus random-start groups. The number of collected eggs were also similar: 17.6±8.8 vs 17.2±8.5, p=0.6, respectively. Sub-group analysis showed an increased stimulation length (10.2±1.8 vs 9.8±1.7 vs 10.4±1.7, p<0.001) and gonadotropin consumption (2041.5±645.3 vs 2003.2±647.3 vs 2158.2±685.7 IU, p=0.01) in the luteal phase group vs the mid/late follicular and conventional groups; respectively. In matched recipients receiving fresh oocytes and undergoing fresh embryo transfer, the biochemical pregnancy (63.8% and 63.3%; p=0.9), clinical pregnancy (54.6% and 56.1%; p=0.8) and live birth rates (47.7% and 46.6%; p=0.7) per embryo-transfer were similar between conventional versus random groups. Similar results were obtained in recipients receiving vitrified eggs. Euploidy rate was also comparable. Conclusions There were no notable variations in clinical outcomes using oocytes obtained from random-start protocols and those proceeding from conventional ovarian stimulation in oocyte donation treatments. However, luteal-phase stimulation seems to require longer stimulation and higher FSH consumption. Our results indicate that random-start stimulation strategy does not impair the potential of the oocyte yield or clinical outcomes in oocyte donation cycles.es_ES
dc.formatapplication/pdfes_ES
dc.format.extent26es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherElsevieres_ES
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccesses_ES
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectOvarian stimulationes_ES
dc.subjectRandom-start IVFes_ES
dc.subjectOocyte donation cycleses_ES
dc.subjectFollicular waveses_ES
dc.subjectLive birth. Introductiones_ES
dc.titleInitiation of ovarian stimulation independent of the menstrual cycle (random-start) in an oocyte donation programme a large, single-center experiencees_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.relation.publisherversionhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.103572es_ES
Aparece en las colecciones:
Artículos Salud Pública, Historia de la Ciencia y Ginecología


no-thumbnailVer/Abrir:

 Initiation of ovarian stimulation independent of the menstrual cycle.pdf



1,23 MB
Adobe PDF
Compartir:


Creative Commons La licencia se describe como: Atribución-NonComercial-NoDerivada 4.0 Internacional.