ObjectiveTo explore whether differences in embryo kinetics exist between protocols employing GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) down-regulation and hCG for triggering versus GnRH antagonist (GnRH- ant) and GnRH agonist for triggering.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Materials and MethodsWe studied 748 embryos from oocyte donation. Donors were stimulated with recombinant FSH and down-regulated with either GnRHa or GnRH-ant. Triggering was performed with hCG in the GnRHa group and with GnRH-a in the GnRH-ant one. Through a time-lapse system (Embryoscope™ Unisense Fertilitech, Aarhus, Denmark), we obtained a monitoring of the embryos. Timing values of cleavage to 2-cell embryos (T2), to 3-cell embryos (T3), to 4-cells embryos (T4), time of compaction (M), appearance of a blastocoel cavity (B), length of the second cell cycle (CC2) and the synchrony from 2-cell to 4-cell embryos (S2) were recorded. The proportion of optimal embryos was determined from our previous observations, identifying embryos in a best time range with a higher implantation potential. We applied a T-test with P<0.05 statistically significant.ResultsTable I.GnRH-a/hCG (n = 44)CI 95%GnRH-ant/GnRH-a (n = 66)CI 95%pT2 (h)27.026.5-27.527.527.1-27.8NST3 (h)38.838.2-39.440.039.5-40.5<0.05T4 (h)40.039.2-40.841.040.0-42.0NSS2 (h)1.30.8-1.81.91.0-2.8NSCC2 (h)11.911.4-12.312.612.3-13.0<0.05M (h)89.086.6-91.491.590.3-92.7NSB (h)106.0104.0-108.0103.4102.2-104.6NS%optimal embryos%optimal embryosT2 (h) 24.6-28.24438.3-49.747.542.9-52.1NST3 (h) 35.2-40.543.738.0-49.442.638.0-47.2NSS2 (h) <0.7584.480.0-88.885.079.1-90.9NSCC2 (h) <1237.832.2-43.430.626.3-34.9NS Open table in a new tab ConclusionThese new data deriving from a time-lapse system, suggest that the type of protocol used for ovarian stimulation seems to impact embryonic kinetics. ObjectiveTo explore whether differences in embryo kinetics exist between protocols employing GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) down-regulation and hCG for triggering versus GnRH antagonist (GnRH- ant) and GnRH agonist for triggering. To explore whether differences in embryo kinetics exist between protocols employing GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) down-regulation and hCG for triggering versus GnRH antagonist (GnRH- ant) and GnRH agonist for triggering. DesignRetrospective cohort study. Retrospective cohort study. Materials and MethodsWe studied 748 embryos from oocyte donation. Donors were stimulated with recombinant FSH and down-regulated with either GnRHa or GnRH-ant. Triggering was performed with hCG in the GnRHa group and with GnRH-a in the GnRH-ant one. Through a time-lapse system (Embryoscope™ Unisense Fertilitech, Aarhus, Denmark), we obtained a monitoring of the embryos. Timing values of cleavage to 2-cell embryos (T2), to 3-cell embryos (T3), to 4-cells embryos (T4), time of compaction (M), appearance of a blastocoel cavity (B), length of the second cell cycle (CC2) and the synchrony from 2-cell to 4-cell embryos (S2) were recorded. The proportion of optimal embryos was determined from our previous observations, identifying embryos in a best time range with a higher implantation potential. We applied a T-test with P<0.05 statistically significant. We studied 748 embryos from oocyte donation. Donors were stimulated with recombinant FSH and down-regulated with either GnRHa or GnRH-ant. Triggering was performed with hCG in the GnRHa group and with GnRH-a in the GnRH-ant one. Through a time-lapse system (Embryoscope™ Unisense Fertilitech, Aarhus, Denmark), we obtained a monitoring of the embryos. Timing values of cleavage to 2-cell embryos (T2), to 3-cell embryos (T3), to 4-cells embryos (T4), time of compaction (M), appearance of a blastocoel cavity (B), length of the second cell cycle (CC2) and the synchrony from 2-cell to 4-cell embryos (S2) were recorded. The proportion of optimal embryos was determined from our previous observations, identifying embryos in a best time range with a higher implantation potential. We applied a T-test with P<0.05 statistically significant. ResultsTable I.GnRH-a/hCG (n = 44)CI 95%GnRH-ant/GnRH-a (n = 66)CI 95%pT2 (h)27.026.5-27.527.527.1-27.8NST3 (h)38.838.2-39.440.039.5-40.5<0.05T4 (h)40.039.2-40.841.040.0-42.0NSS2 (h)1.30.8-1.81.91.0-2.8NSCC2 (h)11.911.4-12.312.612.3-13.0<0.05M (h)89.086.6-91.491.590.3-92.7NSB (h)106.0104.0-108.0103.4102.2-104.6NS%optimal embryos%optimal embryosT2 (h) 24.6-28.24438.3-49.747.542.9-52.1NST3 (h) 35.2-40.543.738.0-49.442.638.0-47.2NSS2 (h) <0.7584.480.0-88.885.079.1-90.9NSCC2 (h) <1237.832.2-43.430.626.3-34.9NS Open table in a new tab ConclusionThese new data deriving from a time-lapse system, suggest that the type of protocol used for ovarian stimulation seems to impact embryonic kinetics. These new data deriving from a time-lapse system, suggest that the type of protocol used for ovarian stimulation seems to impact embryonic kinetics.
Read full abstract