Combined progesterone (IM + V) versus vaginal progesterone for luteal support in cleavage-stage embryo transfer cycles of good prognosis patients

Many reports led to the consensus on the use of progesterone (P) for luteal-phase support. Vaginal P application is the method of choice due to its simplicity and high patient convenience but is hampered by application difficulties and personal or cultural aversions. Inappropriate vaginal P use may...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inGynecological endocrinology Vol. 32; no. 5; pp. 366 - 369
Main Authors Pabuccu, E. G., Pabuccu, R., Evliyaoglu Ozdegirmenci, O., Bostancı Durmus, A., Keskin, M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Taylor & Francis 03.05.2016
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Many reports led to the consensus on the use of progesterone (P) for luteal-phase support. Vaginal P application is the method of choice due to its simplicity and high patient convenience but is hampered by application difficulties and personal or cultural aversions. Inappropriate vaginal P use may alter successful implantation, leading physicians to consider alternate P application routes. A worldwide survey revealed that intramuscular plus vaginal P (combined P) is the method used in nearly one-third of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, particularly in Asia and North America; unfortunately, the outcomes of this approach have not been clearly elucidated. In the current analysis, we evaluated any additional benefit of short course parenteral P in addition to vaginal P capsules during a specific period in terms of implantation, pregnancy rates, miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies in cleavage stage embryo transfer (ET) cycles of good-prognosis patients. Despite significantly higher implantation rates in the combined arm, clinical and ongoing pregnancies were comparable in both groups, whereas a trend toward increased pregnancy rates was observed with combined support. The available data are too limited to draw conclusions.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0951-3590
1473-0766
DOI:10.3109/09513590.2015.1127910