The Clinical Significance of a Low Percentage of Mature Oocytes Retrieved Using Common Ovarian Stimulation Protocols.

Since the early 1980’s a variety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols with the use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues (agonists or antagonists) in conjunction with gonadotropins/menotropins have been developed ^{1, 2, 3, 4}. The addition of GnRH analogues significantly reduced the incidence of premature LH surges and cycle cancellations, leading to a higher number of oocytes retrieved, with an improved outcome of infertility treatments ^{5, 6, 7, 8}. Despite a significant number of studies ³,¹²,¹³,³¹,³⁴,³⁸,⁴⁰,⁴²,⁴⁸,⁵² comparing both long GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols, the superiority of one over another is still widely debated in the literature.

The mechanism of action of these two analogues (agonist and antagonist) is different. In the long agonist protocol, antral follicles are recruited by exogenous gonadotropin after early depletion of endogenous hormones. In the antagonist protocol the endogenous hormones recruit follicles. GnRH antagonist controls gonadotropin secretion by its immediate suppression in the pituitary. The use of the antagonist is associated with a shorter time of stimulation, reduced gonadotropin consumption and a reduced ovarian hyper-stimulation incidence (OHSS) as well as a different pattern of steroid hormones concentration in the blood and follicular fluid ⁹ when compared to the agonist protocol ^{10, 11, 12, 13, 14}. The differences in the endocrine environment for maturing oocytes may alter the ovarian folliculogenesis and influence the oocyte quality ^{15, 16, 17}and subsequently embryo development ¹⁸. It has been demonstrated that embryos derived from the women stimulated with the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol underwent faster with the earliest cleavage than embryos derived from women stimulated with a long GnRH agonist protocol ¹⁹.

Previously, a positive correlation between the follicle size, oocyte maturity and pregnancy rate of women undergoing IVF, has been reported ^{20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25}. Others ^{26, 27, 28} demonstrated that larger leading follicles yield better pregnancy rates, but not necessarily a higher percentage of mature oocytes or availability of embryos for transfer ²⁵. Teissier et al. ¹⁷ showed a discrepancy between the size and maturity status of the oocytes collected from the patients stimulated with the agonist protocol. They found mature oocytes were present in smaller follicles, and immature in larger follicles. Nogueira et al showed a significantly higher percentage of immature oocytes were retrieved from large follicles in antagonist cycles when compared to the agonist protocol ²⁷. They found also a greater heterogeneity in maturity of oocytes retrieved from patients stimulated with antagonist. Therefore, taking into consideration the information available in the literature, we undertook the present study to determine whether a low, medium or high percentage of mature oocytes retrieved may influence the clinical outcome of the two commonly used ovarian stimulation protocols (flexible multi-dose antagonist and long agonist) in IVF patients.

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Abington Memorial Hospital, PA. The data of 1264 ICSI cycles (2000 – 2013 years) with information on the nuclear maturity of retrieved oocytes, were extracted from the electronic database. Any types of donors (oocytes, sperm) or gestational carrier cycles were excluded. The follicular growth was stimulated using common IVF protocols either agonist (long lupron, 654 cycles) or multidose flexible antagonist (antagon, 610 cycles) and pure gonadotropins and menotropins (Gonal-F, Serono Laboratiories INC. Norwell, MA, Follistim, Organon Inc, West Orange, NJ, Repronex and Brevale, Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc., Tarrytown, NY). The ovarian stimulation started on day 3. The initial dose of hormones was determined based on the follicles size, estradiol level in the blood, age of patient and type of diagnosis. Dosages were adjusted every 2-3 days in association with the follicles size and estradiol level in the blood. HCG 10,000 IU (Profasi, Serono, USA) was administered when at least one follicle was ≥18 mm in diameter, and endometrial thickness of >8 mm and appropriate estradiol levels achieved. The oocytes were retrieved 34-36 h later. To precisely assess the maturity of retrieved oocytes, denudation of oocytes using hyaluronidase (80 IU/ml; Conception Technology, San Diego, CA, USA) was performed 1-2 h after oocytes collection. Spermatozoa for the ICSI procedure was prepared using density gradient (90 & 45%; PureCeption, Conception Technologies, CA, USA) protocol. After injection, oocytes were cultured in a fertilization medium following cleavage media (both from Cooper Surgical Inc., Trumbull, CT, USA). Fertilization was assessed 17-20 h after injection. The embryo development (number and regularity of blastomeres, degree of embryo fragmentation and cytoplasm quality) was assessed daily. Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (ET) was carried out on the day 3 after oocytes retrieval. The number of embryos transferred was in accordance to the guidelines of the Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology.

The distribution of diagnoses (endometriosis, idiopathic, male factor, ovulatory dysfunction, tubal, polycystic ovary syndrome, diminished ovarian reserve or advanced maternal age) in our antagonist and agonist protocol study groups is presented in Table 1. The majority of patients in both treatment protocols were diagnosed as male factor (approx. 45%) and diminished ovarian reserve (approx. 25%).

The use of the antagonist or agonist in the ovarian stimulation protocols did not have any effect (p<0.35) on the overall percentage of mature oocytes retrieved. Percentage of mature oocytes retrieved correlated positively (p<0.003, data not shown) with the number of days of stimulation in both protocols. There were no differences between the three studied groups (≤30%, 31-69% and ≥70 %) of the antagonist and agonist protocols in relation to the age, day 3 FSH level, endometrium thickness, estradiol level on day of hCG, or estradiol concentration per retrieved oocyte (Table 2). However, in the antagonist protocol treated group of ≥70 % matured oocytes retrieved, there was a tendency (p<0.053) in enrolling more older patients. Consequently, the difference in the age (p<0.001) between the two treatment protocols of the groups with ≥70 % mature oocytes was established. The endometrium was significantly thinner in the antagonist protocol groups (p<0.004, p<0.001and p<0.002, respectively) compared to the agonist. The estradiol level at time of HCG injection was significantly (p<0.001) lower for the antagonist of second (31-69%) and third (≥70%) group compared to corresponding agonist groups (Table 2).

There were no differences in the number of eggs retrieved between the antagonist groups. However, the first agonist protocol group (≤30% mature oocytes) had the lowest number of retrieved oocytes (p<0.04) when compared to other groups using this protocol (Table 3). The number of mature and fertilized (2PNs) oocytes gradually increased (p<0.001) as more mature oocytes were retrieved in each of both protocol groups (Table 3). There were no differences in the number of transferred embryos between each protocol group , as well as between the treatment protocols. There were no differences in the fertilization rate between the antagonist and agonist protocol groups (Table 3). The differences between the treatment protocols (antagonist vs. agonist) were determined among the groups 31-69% and ≥70 % mature oocytes in the number of retrieved (p< 0.0009 and p<0.0007, respectively), matured (p<0.0001, p<0.0004, respectively) and fertilized oocytes (p< 0.0004, p<0.0007, respectively). Additionally, the fertilization rate of the agonist group with ≥70% of mature oocytes was significantly higher (p<0.03) compared to the corresponding antagonist protocol group (Table 3). The overall number of retrieved, mature and, fertilized oocytes was significantly higher (p<0.05) in the agonist protocol when compared to the antagonist protocol (data not shown).

There were no differences in implantation, and live births between the three studied antagonist protocol groups (Table 4). The clinical pregnancy rate (presence of sac and heart beat) in the first antagonist protocol group (≤30% mature oocytes) was lower (p<0.03 and p<0.05, respectively) when compared to the other two studied groups. In the agonist protocol, implantation and live births of the first group were significantly (p<0.009) lower than compared to third group but not the second group. The clinical pregnancy rate in first agonist protocol group (≤30% mature oocytes) was lower (p<0.008 and p<0.023, respectively) compare to the other two groups. Live birth rates were significantly different between the antagonist and agonist protocols: 22.2 vs. 35.95% (p<0.0009) for groups 31-69% and 23.9 vs. 41.5% (p<0.0001) for groups with ≥70% mature oocytes.

In our study, the groups with low ovarian response (less than 30 % of mature oocytes retrieved) of the antagonist (antagon) and the agonist (long lupron) were comparable in terms of characteristics assessed (endocrinological and embryological) and the clinical outcome (implantation, clinical pregnancy and live births). Similarly, Al-Inany et al. ²⁹ showed no differences in clinical pregnancy rates between the GnRH antagonist and the GnRH agonist treatment in patients with low ovarian responses or PCO patients ³⁰. However, in our study, the groups with low percentages of mature oocytes retrieved from antagonist and agonist groups were significantly different in terms of the number of the matured (M II) and fertilized oocytes (2PNs) and clinical pregnancy from other studied groups. Additionally, in the agonist protocol, the implantation rate and live births of the <30% group were significantly lower from the group with the highest percentage of the mature oocytes retrieved. A low clinical outcome of the groups with lower number of mature oocytes retrieved might be a result of a lower sensitivity of follicles to ovulation induction protocols. It appears that this effect was more evident in the agonist than in the antagonist protocol, as the variables examined showed statistical differences. Thus, the same ovulation induction protocol might produce different treatment outcome in patients with different ovarian sensitivity to the stimulation protocol ²⁹.

There were no statistical differences in clinical outcomes (implantation, clinical pregnancy and live births) between the second and third group (groups with more mature oocytes retrieved) of antagonist and agonist protocols. However, when the second and third group of antagonist was compared with corresponding group of agonist protocol, there were significantly lower live birth rate in the antagonist protocol (second groups 22.2 vs. 35.9% and third groups 23.9 vs. 41.5 %). Similarly, Orvieto & Patrizio ³¹ reported that live birth rates and ongoing pregnancy were significantly lower in the group treated with the GnRH antagonist when compared to the agonist long protocol. After analyzing nine trials and twenty eight RCTs for GnRH antagonist application in IVF, Youssef & Elashmawi ³² determined that, the live birth rate was 1.5% and 2% lower in the GnRH antagonist when compared to the agonist treatment. However, a recent review of Al-Inany et al. ²⁹ that is contrary to their previous reports ¹,³³,has demonstrated no evidence of statistically significant differences in the rates of live births or ongoing pregnancies when comparing GnRH agonist long protocols with antagonist protocols. A meta-analysis by Xiao et al. ³⁴ showed that ongoing pregnancy and live births were similar in the GnRH antagonist when compared with the standard long GnRH agonist protocols. Nonetheless, Conrad et al. ³⁵ demonstrated significantly higher live birth rates in women provided with LH supplementation in antagonist cycles, where their intra-cycle LH levels were very low. The lower live birth rates in the antagonist protocol group in our study might be a result of a thinner endometrium and lower estradiol levels on HCG injection day when compared to the agonist protocol. It is well documented that inadequate estradiol levels from ovarian stimulation may impair endometrial receptivity ^{36, 37}. Similarly, Orvieto et al. ³⁸ showed a significantly lower endometrial thickness for the antagonist treatment when compared to the agonist. However, Simon et al.³⁹demonstrated that endometrial development after GnRH antagonist mimics the natural endometrium to a greater extent than after GnRH agonist.

In our study, there was no difference in the clinical pregnancy between the second and third group of antagonist and agonist protocols as well between these two treatment protocols. Engel et al. ⁴⁰ performed a sub-analysis of patients with equal demographic and clinical features, which resulted in similar pregnancy rates independent of GnRH used. Shanbhag et al.⁴¹ and Orvieto et al.³⁸ observed a lower pregnancy rate in the antagonist protocol compared to the GnRH agonist long protocol. Ludwig et al.⁴² in their meta-analysis study showed a reduction in the pregnancy rate using antagonist - ganirelix/antagon vs. long agonist protocol. However, the antagonist cetrorelix resulted in the same pregnancy rate as with the long agonist protocol. The studies of Al-Inany & Aboulghar ⁴³ and Depalo et al. ¹³ showed a trend towards a lower pregnancy rate in the antagonist protocol. A similar trend was also observed in patients with LH deficiency as documented by low E₂ to oocyte ratio and was explained by the endometrial impact of a lower LH level ⁴⁴. Higher pregnancy rates in the agonist cycles may be a result of larger number of oocytes and embryos for selection for transfer ⁴⁵. Demonstrated differences in the number of M II and 2PNs between the studied groups of both protocols in our study were more likely to be a result of enforced stratification of the data. Therefore, in each group of both protocols, the number of mature and fertilized oocytes were progressively increasing with parallel increase in estradiol level in the blood produced by growing follicles. However, the overall number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes and 2PN oocytes in the antagonist protocol was significantly lower compared to the agonist in our study. Similarly, European and Middle East Study ⁴⁶, Mochtar et al. ⁴⁷, Barmat et al. ⁴⁸ and Orvieto & Patrizio ³¹ reported a lower mean number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes (COC) and 2 pronuclear (PN) oocytes in the GnRH-antagonist group compared to the GnRH – agonist group. The reports of Albano et al. 10, Olivennes et al. ⁴⁹, Fluker et al. ⁵⁰, Roulier et al. ⁵¹showed similar results to those obtained in our study, suggesting that they stem from a lower serum estradiol level on the day of hCG administration. A possible reason for a lower number of oocytes retrieved from the patients on the GnRH antagonist protocol compared to the long agonist protocol was suggested by Hurine et al.⁵². The authors claim that this is a result of a relatively higher level of FSH during early follicular phase that coincides with a range of initially developing follicles of the antagonist regiment, causing decreased synchronization of the follicular cohort²⁷so that lower number oocytes were retrieved. Moreover, the differences between these two protocols might be due to a different mechanism of GnRH actions. In the agonist (long protocol) after a variable period of endogenous gonadotrophin depletion, small antral follicles are recruited by the exogenous gonadotropins. In contrast, in the antagonist cycle, the recruited follicles have already been exposed for a few days to endogenous inter-cycle FSH rise ^{1, 53, 54}. Administration of the GnRH antagonist at the end of the stimulation period could have had an effect on the cell cycle of granulosa cells ⁵⁵. In vitro studies showed that GnRH-antagonist restrains cell growth by decreasing the synthesis and the stimulatory effects of IGFs on follicle growth ⁵⁶. GnRH may act as an autocrine factor by regulating mitogen-activated protein kinase in human granulosa luteal cells ^{57, 58} and affect the follicles environment. Young et al. ⁵⁹ demonstrated a difference in the follicular microenvironment between GnRH agonist long protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol. However, the authors were not able to show an effect of the follicular microenvironment on the clinical outcome (pregnancy and implantation rates), most likely due to a small number of analyzed cycles (n=32-antagonist and n=36- long GnRH agonist). The recent study on the morphokinetics of the embryos ¹⁷ demonstrated that abnormality in cleavage embryo (reverse cleavage) was associated with the regiment used for ovarian stimulation. Reverse cleavage was more frequently seen in the embryos where GnRH antagonists were used compared to GnRH agonists. The authors suggested that mechanisms controlling reverse cleavage may be sensitive to the environment of the oocyte during folliculogenesis. Therefore, it supports the earlier statement, that population of follicles and oocytes of long agonist and antagonist protocols differ from each other.

In conclusion, clinical outcomes appear to be influenced by the percentage of mature oocytes retrieved especially when the percentage of retrieved mature oocytes is low. It is essential to establish ovarian sensitivity to gonadotropins before any type of individualized approach of controlled ovarian stimulation protocol will be applied.

Authors report no financial or commercial conflicts of interest.

TW data collection and elaboration of the manuscript; RM statistical analysis; SGS data collection, editing of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

The authors wish to thank the staff of the embryology laboratory for retrieving data from the electronic data base and the Toll Center for Reproductive Science team for their enthusiasm and support in collecting data.

1. 1Al-Inany H, Aboulghar M. (2001) GnRH antagonist for assisted conception”. , Cochrane Database Syst. Rev 4, 001750.
   Search at Google Scholar

1. 2B C Fauser, Diedrich K, Devroey P. (2008) Predictors of ovarian response: progress towards individualized treatment in ovulation induction and ovarian stimulation”. Evian Annual Reproduction Workshop Group2007. Hum Reprod 14, 1-14.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 3Bodri D, Sunkara S K. (2011) A Coomarasamy ”Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists versus antagonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in oocyte donors: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. , Fertil Steril 95, 164-169.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 4Gordts S, C Van Turnhout, Campo R, Puttemans P, Valkenburg M et al. (2012) Prospective randomized study comparing a GnRH-antagonist versus a GnRH-agonist short protocol for ovarian stimulation in patients referred for IVF”. , FVV in Ob Gyn 4, 82-87.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 5Hughes E G, Fedorkow D M, Daya S, Sagle M A, Koppel P Van de et al. (1992) The routine use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists prior to in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer: A metanalysis of randomized trials”. , Fertil Steril 58, 888-896.
   Search at Google Scholar

1. 6Albano C, Smitz J, Camus M, Riethmuller-Wuller H, Siebert-Weiger M et al. (1996) Hormonal profile during the follicular phase in cycles stimulated with a combination of human menopausal gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist”. , Hum Reprod 11, 14-18.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 7B C Fauser, Devroey P. (2005) Why is the clinical acceptance of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist co-treatment during ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization so slow?”. , Fertil Steril 83, 1607-1611.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 8Griesinger G, C A Venetis, Marx T, Diedrich K, B C Tarlatzis et al. (2008) Oral contraceptive pill pretreatment in ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonists for IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis”. , Fertil Steril 90, 1055-1063.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 9Y S Choi, S Y Ku, Ch S Suh, Y M Choi, J G Kim et al. (2006) Comparison of follicular fluid IGF-1, IGF-II, IGFBP-3, IGFBP-4 and PAPP-A concentrations and their ratios between GnRH agoinst and GnRH antagonist protocols for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF-embryo transfer patients”. , Hum Reprod 21, 15-21.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 10Albano C, R E Felberbaum, Smitz J, Riethmuller-Winzen H, Engel J et al. (2000) European Cetrorelix Study Group Ovarian stimulation with HMG: results of a prospective randomized phase III European study comparing the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH)-antagonist cetrorelix and the LHRH-agonist buserelin”. , Hum Reprod 15, 526-531.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 11Rashid M R Z, F B Ong, M H Omar, S P Ng, Nurshaireen A et al. (2008) . , GnRH Agonist and GnRH Antagonist in Intracytoplasmic Injection Cycles”. Med J Malaysia 63, 113-117.
   PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 12B K Aygun, Kahraman S. (2010) Comparison of GnRH Agonist Long and Antagonist Protocols in the Same Normoresponders Patient Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Treatment”. , Firat Med J 15, 123-127.
   Search at Google Scholar

1. 13Depalo R, Jayakrishan K, Garruti G, Totaro I, Panzarino M et al. (2012) GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF/ET)”. , Reprod Biol Endocrinol 10, 1-8.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 14J T Arruda, M S Approbato, Maia M C S, T M Silva, C R Mendonca et al. (2013) Comparison GnRH agonist short protocol and GnRH antagonist in Brazilian normoresponder patients undergoing their first cycle of controlled ovarian stimulation”. , JBRA Assist Reprod 17, 304-309.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 15K P McNatty, S D Moore, A J Makris. (1979) The microenvironment of the human antral follicle: interrelationships among the steroid levels in antral fluid, the population of granulose cells and the status of oocytes in vivo and in vitro”. , J Clin Endocrinol Metab 49, 851-860.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 16T Van Dessel, Schipper I, Pache D. (1996) Normal human follicle development: an evaluation of correlations with oestradiol, androstenedione and progesterone concentrations in individual follicles”. , Clin. Endocrinol 44, 191-198.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 17M P Teissier, Chable H, Paulhac S, Aubard Y. (2000) Comparison of follicle steroidogenesis from normal and polycystic ovaries in women undergoing IVF: relationship between steroid concentrations, follicle size, oocyte quality and fecundability”. , Hum. Reprod 15, 2471-7.
   Scopus·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 18M A Santos, E W Kuijk, N S Macklon. (2010) The impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the developing embryos”. , Reproduction 139, 23-34.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 19Liu Y, Chapple V, Med M R, Roberts P, Matson P. (2014) Prevalence, consequence, and significance of reverse cleavage by human embryos viewed with the use of the Embryoscope time-lapse video system”. , Fert Steril 102, 1295-300.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 20Nilsson L, Wikland M, Hamberger L. (1985) Simplification of the method of in vitro fertilization: sonographic measurements of follicular diameter as the sole index of follicular maturity”. , J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 2, 17-22.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 21Simonetti S, Veek L L, Jr H W Jones. (1985) Correlation of follicular fluid volume with oocyte morphology from follicles stimulated by human menopausal gonadotropin”. , Fertil. Steril 44, 177-190.
   ScienceDirect·Scopus·View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 22R T Scott, G E Hofmann, S J Muasher, Acosta A A, Kreiner D K et al. (1989) Correlation of follicular diameter with oocyte recovery and maturity at time of transvaginal follicular aspiration”. , J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 6, 73-75.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 23Nayudu L, D A Gook, Lopata A, Johnston W L A. (1989) Prediction of outcome in human in vitro fertilization based on follicular and stimulation response variables”. , Fertil Steril 51, 117-125.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 24Bergh C, Broden H, Lundin K, Hamberger L. (1998) Comparison of fertilization, cleavage and pregnancy rates of oocytes from large and small follicles”. , Hum Reprod 13, 1912-1915.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 25J M Knopman, J A Grifo, A P Novetsky, M B Smith, A S Berkeley. (2012) Is bigger better: The association between follicle size and live birth rate following. , IVF?” J Obstet. Gynaecol 2, 361-366.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 26K F Miller, J M Goldberg, T. (1996) Falcone.” Follicle size and implantation of embryos from in vitro fertilization”. , Obstet Gynecol 88, 583-586.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 27Nogueira D, Friedler S, Schachter M, Raziel A, Ron-El R et al. (2006) Oocyte maturity and preimplantation development in relation to follicular diameter in gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist treatment”. , Fertil Steril 85, 578-583.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 28M P Rosen, Shen S, A T Dobson, P F Rinaudo, C E Mcculloch et al. (2008) A quantitative assessment of follicle size on oocyte developmental competence”. , Fertil Steril 90, 684-690.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 29Abou-Setta. (2011) Gonadotrophin -releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology”. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 5: CD001750.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 30Xiao J, Chen S, Zhang C, Chang S. (2013) Effectiveness of GnRH antagonist in the treatment of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta analysis”. , Gynecol Endocrinol 29, 187-91.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 31Orvieto R, Patrizio P. (2013) GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: an ongoing debate”. , Reprod Biomed Online 26, 4-8.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 32Youssef M A F M, Elashmawi H. (2011) GnRH antagonist for pituitary desensitization in IVF: Is it a time for a change of practice?”. , Middle East Fertility Society Journal 16, 254-258.
   Scopus·ScienceDirect·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 33Al-Inany H, Abou-Setta A M, Aboughar M. (2006) Gonadotropin -releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology”. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev; 3: CD001750.
   Scopus·PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 34J S Xiao, C M Su, X T Zeng. (2014) . Comparison of GnRH Antagonist versus GnRH Agonist Protocol in Supposed Normal Ovarian Responders Undergoing IVF: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis”. PLoS One,vol.12, 9(9); 106854. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0106854.eCollection .
   View article·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 35Conrad D, Hughes G, Sacks G. (2015) LH supplementation for low LH levels during antagonist IVF cycles improves live birth rates”. doi: 10.4172/2375-4508.1000155. JFiV Reprod Med Genet,vol.3,no.155.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 36Pellicer A, Valbuena D, Cano F, Remohi J, Simon C. (1996) Lower implantation rates in high responders: evidence for an altered endocrine milieu during the preimplantation period”. , Fertil Steril 65, 1190-5.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 37R J Paulson, M V Sauer, R A Lobo. (1990) Embryo implantation after human in vitro fertilization: importance of endometrial receptivity”. , Fertil Steril 53, 870-874.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 38Orvieto R, Meltcer S, Rabinson J, Zohav E, E Y Anteby et al. (2008) GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: the role of endometrial receptivity?”. , Fertil Steril 90, 1294-1296.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 39Simon C, Oberye J, Vidal C, Bosch E, J A Horcajadas et al. (2005) A Pellicer. (2015)“Similar endometrial development in oocyte donors treated with either high-or standard-dose GnRH antagonist compared to treatment with a GnRH agonist or in natural cycles”. , Hum Reprod 20, 318-327.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 40J B Engel, Griesinger G, Schultze-Mosgau A, Felberbaum R, Diedrich K. (2006) GnRH agonists and antagonists in assisted reproduction pregnancy rate”. , Reprod Biomed Online 13, 84-87.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 41Shanbhag S, Aucott L, Bhattacharya S, M A Hamilton, A R McTavish. (2007) Intervention for poor responders to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilization (IVF)”. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 1, 004379.
   PubMed·View article·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 42Ludwig M, Katalinic A, Diedrich K. (2001) Use of GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technologies compared to the long protocol. , Meta-analysis”. Arch Gynecol Obstet 265, 175-182.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 43H Y Al-Inany, Aboughar M. (2002) GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction: a Cochrane review”. , Hum Reprod 17, 874-885.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 44Cedrin-Durnerin I, Grange-Dujardin D, Laffy A, Parneix I, Massin N et al. (2004) Recombinant human LH supplementation during GnRH antagonist administration in IVF/ICSI cycles; a prospective randomized study”. , Hum Reprod 19, 1979-1984.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 45Hayden C. (2008) GnRH analogues: applications in assisted reproductive techniques”. , European Journal of Endocrinology 159, 17-25.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 46 (2011) European and Middle East Orgalutan Study Group. “Comparable clinical outcome using the GnRH antagonist ganirelix or a long protocol of the GnRH agonist triptorelin for the prevention of premature LH surges in women undergoing ovarian stimulation”. , Hum Reprod 16, 644-651.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 47Mochtar M H. (2004) Dutch Ganirelix Study Group: “The effect of an individualized GnRH antagonist protocol on folliculogenesis in IVF/ICSI”. , Hum Reprod 19, 1713-1718.
   Search at Google Scholar

1. 48L I Barmat, S J Chantilis, B S Hurst, Dickey R P A. (2005) A randomized prospective trial comparing gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist/recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) versus GnRH-agonist/rFSH in women pretreated with oral contraceptives before in vitro fertilization”. , Fertil Steril 83, 321-330.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 49Olivennes F, Belaisch-Allart J, J C Empereraire, Dechaud H, Alvarez S et al. (2000) randomized, controlled study of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with a single dose of a luteinizing hormone-releasing homone (LHRH) antagonist (cetrorelix) or a depot formula of an LHRH agonist (triptorelin)”. , Fertil Steril 73, 314-320.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 50Fluker M, Grifo J, Leader A, Levy M, Meldrum D et al. (2001) Efficacy and safety of ganirelix acetate versus leuproide acetate in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation”. , Fertil Steril 75, 38-45.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 51Roulier R, Chabert-Orsini V, M C Sitri, Barry B, Terriou P. (2003) Depot GnRH agonist versus the single dose GnRH antagonist regiment (cetrolelix, 3 mg) in patients undergoing assisted reproduction treatment”. , Reprod BioMed Online 7, 185-189.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 52J A Huirne, Homburg R, C B Lambalk. (2007) Are GnRH antagonists comparable to agonists for use in. , IVF?” Hum Reprod 22, 2805-2813.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 53Elter K, L R Nelson. (2001) Use of third generation gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: a review”. , Obstet Gynecol Surv 56, 576-578.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 54Olivennes F, J S Cunha-Filho, Fanchin R, Buchard P, Frydman R. (2002) The use of GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation”. , Hum Reprod Update 8, 279-290.
   PubMed·View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 55E R Hernandez. (2000) Embryo implantation and GnRH antagonists: embryo implantation: the Rubicon for GnRH antagonists”. , Hum Reprod 15, 1211-1216.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 56Emons G, Ortmann O, Becker M, Irmer G, Springer B et al. (1993) High affinity binding and direct antiproliferative effects of LHRH analogues in human ovarian cancer cell lines”. , Cancer Res 15, 5439-5446.
   View article·PubMed·Search at Google Scholar

1. 57S K Kang, K C Choi, K W Cheng, P S Nathwani, Auersperg N et al. (2000) Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone as an autocrine growth factor in human ovarian surface epithelium”. , Endocrinol 141, 72-80.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 58S K Kang, K C Choi, C J Tai, Auersperg N, P C Leung. (2001) Estradiol regulates gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and its receptor gene expression and antagonizes the growth inhibitory effects of GnRH in human ovarian surface epithelium and ovarian cancer cells”. , Endocrinol 142, 580-588.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar

1. 59S C H, Seok H K, Young K, Seung-Yup J, Byung-Chul S et al. (2006) Comparison of follicular fluid IGF-I, IGF-II, IGFBG-3, IGFBP-4 and PAPP-A concentrations and their ratios between GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF-embryo transfer patients”. , Hum Reprod 21, 2015-2021.
   View article·Search at Google Scholar