Ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer, human menopausal gonadotropin versus pure human follicle stimulating hormone

A randomized prospective study

G. Lavy, A. Pellicer, Michael Peter Diamond, A. H. DeCherney

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A randomized, prospective study was conducted to compare ovarian stimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and human follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH) in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) program. Minimal inclusion criteria included age ≤37, tubal infertility, regular menstrual cycles before IVF, and a normal semen analysis. Equivalent doses (225 IU/day) of either hMG (N = 20) or hFSH (N = 20) were administered, and the patients followed by serum estradiol (E2) levels and pelvic ultrasound. Parameters related to the ovarian response to therapy, the number and quality of ova recovered, and the cycle outcome were compared in the two groups using the Student's t-test and chi-square analysis. No difference was detected between the groups in peak E2 levels (828 ± 78 versus 819 ± 79 in the hMG and hFSH groups, respectively), day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration (9.3 ± 0.3 versus 9.7 ± 1.01), occurrence of spontaneous luteinizing hormone (LH) surge (44% versus 27%, P > 0.05, chi square analysis), average number of ova recovered (5.0 ± 0.7 versus 5.6 ± 1), ova maturation (7.5% versus 12.7% rate of immature ova), rate of normal and abnormal fertilization (9.2% versus 8.1% polyspermic fertilization), cleavage stage at transfer (3.6 ± 0.4 versus 3.4 ± 0.7 cells per embryos), the number of embryos transferred (2.5 ± 0.3 versus 2.6 ± 0.3), or the occurrence of pregnancy (1 in the hMG group and 2 in the hFSH group). In conclusion, this study could not demonstrate a difference in the population studied between hFSH and hMG when used for ovarian stimulation in IVF-ET.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)74-78
Number of pages5
JournalFertility and Sterility
Volume50
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1988
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Human Follicle Stimulating Hormone
Menotropins
Ovulation Induction
Embryo Transfer
Fertilization in Vitro
Prospective Studies
Ovum
Fertilization
Embryonic Structures
Semen Analysis
Chorionic Gonadotropin
Chi-Square Distribution
Menstrual Cycle
Luteinizing Hormone
Infertility
Estradiol
Students
Pregnancy
Serum
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

@article{21dd5c4defdb445bb5d88c6f51a9ad6e,
title = "Ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer, human menopausal gonadotropin versus pure human follicle stimulating hormone: A randomized prospective study",
abstract = "A randomized, prospective study was conducted to compare ovarian stimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and human follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH) in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) program. Minimal inclusion criteria included age ≤37, tubal infertility, regular menstrual cycles before IVF, and a normal semen analysis. Equivalent doses (225 IU/day) of either hMG (N = 20) or hFSH (N = 20) were administered, and the patients followed by serum estradiol (E2) levels and pelvic ultrasound. Parameters related to the ovarian response to therapy, the number and quality of ova recovered, and the cycle outcome were compared in the two groups using the Student's t-test and chi-square analysis. No difference was detected between the groups in peak E2 levels (828 ± 78 versus 819 ± 79 in the hMG and hFSH groups, respectively), day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration (9.3 ± 0.3 versus 9.7 ± 1.01), occurrence of spontaneous luteinizing hormone (LH) surge (44{\%} versus 27{\%}, P > 0.05, chi square analysis), average number of ova recovered (5.0 ± 0.7 versus 5.6 ± 1), ova maturation (7.5{\%} versus 12.7{\%} rate of immature ova), rate of normal and abnormal fertilization (9.2{\%} versus 8.1{\%} polyspermic fertilization), cleavage stage at transfer (3.6 ± 0.4 versus 3.4 ± 0.7 cells per embryos), the number of embryos transferred (2.5 ± 0.3 versus 2.6 ± 0.3), or the occurrence of pregnancy (1 in the hMG group and 2 in the hFSH group). In conclusion, this study could not demonstrate a difference in the population studied between hFSH and hMG when used for ovarian stimulation in IVF-ET.",
author = "G. Lavy and A. Pellicer and Diamond, {Michael Peter} and DeCherney, {A. H.}",
year = "1988",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0015-0282(16)60011-0",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "50",
pages = "74--78",
journal = "Fertility and Sterility",
issn = "0015-0282",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer, human menopausal gonadotropin versus pure human follicle stimulating hormone

T2 - A randomized prospective study

AU - Lavy, G.

AU - Pellicer, A.

AU - Diamond, Michael Peter

AU - DeCherney, A. H.

PY - 1988/1/1

Y1 - 1988/1/1

N2 - A randomized, prospective study was conducted to compare ovarian stimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and human follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH) in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) program. Minimal inclusion criteria included age ≤37, tubal infertility, regular menstrual cycles before IVF, and a normal semen analysis. Equivalent doses (225 IU/day) of either hMG (N = 20) or hFSH (N = 20) were administered, and the patients followed by serum estradiol (E2) levels and pelvic ultrasound. Parameters related to the ovarian response to therapy, the number and quality of ova recovered, and the cycle outcome were compared in the two groups using the Student's t-test and chi-square analysis. No difference was detected between the groups in peak E2 levels (828 ± 78 versus 819 ± 79 in the hMG and hFSH groups, respectively), day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration (9.3 ± 0.3 versus 9.7 ± 1.01), occurrence of spontaneous luteinizing hormone (LH) surge (44% versus 27%, P > 0.05, chi square analysis), average number of ova recovered (5.0 ± 0.7 versus 5.6 ± 1), ova maturation (7.5% versus 12.7% rate of immature ova), rate of normal and abnormal fertilization (9.2% versus 8.1% polyspermic fertilization), cleavage stage at transfer (3.6 ± 0.4 versus 3.4 ± 0.7 cells per embryos), the number of embryos transferred (2.5 ± 0.3 versus 2.6 ± 0.3), or the occurrence of pregnancy (1 in the hMG group and 2 in the hFSH group). In conclusion, this study could not demonstrate a difference in the population studied between hFSH and hMG when used for ovarian stimulation in IVF-ET.

AB - A randomized, prospective study was conducted to compare ovarian stimulation with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and human follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH) in an in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) program. Minimal inclusion criteria included age ≤37, tubal infertility, regular menstrual cycles before IVF, and a normal semen analysis. Equivalent doses (225 IU/day) of either hMG (N = 20) or hFSH (N = 20) were administered, and the patients followed by serum estradiol (E2) levels and pelvic ultrasound. Parameters related to the ovarian response to therapy, the number and quality of ova recovered, and the cycle outcome were compared in the two groups using the Student's t-test and chi-square analysis. No difference was detected between the groups in peak E2 levels (828 ± 78 versus 819 ± 79 in the hMG and hFSH groups, respectively), day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration (9.3 ± 0.3 versus 9.7 ± 1.01), occurrence of spontaneous luteinizing hormone (LH) surge (44% versus 27%, P > 0.05, chi square analysis), average number of ova recovered (5.0 ± 0.7 versus 5.6 ± 1), ova maturation (7.5% versus 12.7% rate of immature ova), rate of normal and abnormal fertilization (9.2% versus 8.1% polyspermic fertilization), cleavage stage at transfer (3.6 ± 0.4 versus 3.4 ± 0.7 cells per embryos), the number of embryos transferred (2.5 ± 0.3 versus 2.6 ± 0.3), or the occurrence of pregnancy (1 in the hMG group and 2 in the hFSH group). In conclusion, this study could not demonstrate a difference in the population studied between hFSH and hMG when used for ovarian stimulation in IVF-ET.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023681378&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023681378&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)60011-0

DO - 10.1016/S0015-0282(16)60011-0

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 74

EP - 78

JO - Fertility and Sterility

JF - Fertility and Sterility

SN - 0015-0282

IS - 1

ER -