Comparison of the efficacy of subcutaneous versus vaginal progesterone using a rescue protocol in vitrified blastocyst transfer cycles

dc.authoridEsteves, Sandro/0000-0002-1313-9680
dc.authoridMumusoglu, Sezcan/0000-0001-7000-7580
dc.authoridHumaidan, Peter/0000-0001-6884-5366
dc.authorscopusid7003789654
dc.authorscopusid37002884700
dc.authorscopusid24482383000
dc.authorscopusid57212891075
dc.authorscopusid57195769991
dc.authorscopusid57208580149
dc.authorscopusid57208580149
dc.authorwosidEsteves, Sandro/G-4416-2012
dc.authorwosidHumaidan, Peter/KMX-8289-2024
dc.contributor.authorPolat, Mehtap
dc.contributor.authorMumusoglu, Sezcan
dc.contributor.authorPolat, Mehtap
dc.contributor.authorErden, Murat
dc.contributor.authorOzbek, Irem Yarali
dc.contributor.authorEsteves, Sandro C.
dc.contributor.authorHumaidan, Peter
dc.contributor.otherFirst and Emergency Aid Program
dc.date.accessioned2024-07-05T15:21:46Z
dc.date.available2024-07-05T15:21:46Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentAtılım Universityen_US
dc.department-temp[Yarali, Hakan; Mumusoglu, Sezcan; Erden, Murat] Hacettepe Univ, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Ankara, Turkiye; [Yarali, Hakan; Polat, Mehtap; Ozbek, Irem Yarali] Anatolia IVF & Women Hlth Ctr, Ankara, Turkiye; [Polat, Mehtap] Atilim Univ, Dept Med Serv & Tech, First & Emergency Aid Program, Vocat Sch Hlth Serv, Ankara, Turkiye; [Esteves, Sandro C.] Referral Ctr Male Reprod, Androfert Androl & Human Reprod Clin, Campinas, SP, Brazil; [Esteves, Sandro C.; Humaidan, Peter] Aarhus Univ, Dept Clin Med, Aarhus, Denmark; [Humaidan, Peter] Skive Reg Hosp, Fertil Clin, Skive, Denmarken_US
dc.descriptionEsteves, Sandro/0000-0002-1313-9680; Mumusoglu, Sezcan/0000-0001-7000-7580; Humaidan, Peter/0000-0001-6884-5366en_US
dc.description.abstractResearch question: Does administration of subcutaneous (s.c.) progesterone support ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) similar to vaginal progesterone using a rescue protocol in hormone replacement therapy frozen embryo transfer cycles?Design: Retrospective cohort study. Two sequential cohorts -vaginal progesterone gel (December 2019-October 2021; n=474) and s.c. progesterone (November 2021-November 2022; n=249)-were compared. Following oestrogen priming, s.c. progesterone 25 mg twice daily (b.d.) or vaginal progesterone gel 90 mg b.d. was administered. Serum progesterone was measured 1 day prior to warmed blastocyst transfer (i.e. day 5 of progesterone administration). In patients with serum progesterone concentrations <8.75 ng/ml, additional s.c. progesterone (rescue protocol; 25 mg) was provided.Results: In the vaginal progesterone gel group, 15.8% of patients had serum progesterone <8.75 ng/ml and received the rescue protocol, whereas no patients in the s.c. progesterone group received the rescue protocol. OPR, along with positive pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates, were comparable between the s.c. progesterone group without the rescue protocol and the vaginal progesterone gel group with the rescue protocol. After the rescue protocol, the route of progesterone administration was not a significant predictor of ongoing pregnancy. The impact of different serum progesterone concentrations on reproductive outcomes was evaluated by percentile (<10(th), 10-49(th), 50-90(th) and >90(th) percentiles), taking the >90(th) percentile as the reference subgroup. In both the vaginal progesterone gel group and the s.c. progesterone group, all serum progesterone percentile subgroups had similar OPR.Conclusions: Subcutaneous progesterone 25 mg b.d. secures serum progesterone >8.75 ng/ml, whereas additional exogenous progesterone (rescue protocol) was needed in 15.8% of patients who received vaginal progesterone. The s.c. and vaginal progesterone routes, with the rescue protocol if needed, yield comparable OPR.en_US
dc.identifier.citation1
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.05.005
dc.identifier.issn1472-6483
dc.identifier.issn1472-6491
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid37400318
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85164369386
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ2
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2023.05.005
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14411/2129
dc.identifier.volume47en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:001074115300001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherElsevier Sci Ltden_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectHormone replacement therapyen_US
dc.subjectFrozen embryo transferen_US
dc.subjectSubcutaneous progesteroneen_US
dc.subjectLuteal phase supporten_US
dc.subjectSerum progesteroneen_US
dc.subjectOngoing pregnancyen_US
dc.titleComparison of the efficacy of subcutaneous versus vaginal progesterone using a rescue protocol in vitrified blastocyst transfer cyclesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication545441d4-a12c-4fce-aad3-a7f220524e32
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery545441d4-a12c-4fce-aad3-a7f220524e32
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationf84c8071-a11d-4d7c-aea0-e350472914ca
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryf84c8071-a11d-4d7c-aea0-e350472914ca

Files

Collections