International Journal of Women's Health and Reproduction Sciences

Home Aim and Scope Instructions to Authors Editorial Policies Editorial Board Authorship Agreement Form Open Access and Copyright

Apr 2019, Vol 7, Issue 2

CURRENT ISSUE ARCHIVE AHEAD OF PRINT / ACCEPTED ARTICLE MOST VIEWED ARTICLES NEWS RELATED LINKS

Advanced Search

For Author's & Reviewer's

Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) Flowchart

Recommendations for the Conduct

COPE: Reviewers

World Association of Medical Editors(WAME)

EQUATOR Resources : Reviewers

Poll

How do you find the scientific quality of the published articles on our web site?

Very good

Good

Fair

Bad

Very bad

Original Article
Fixed Versus Flexible Antagonist Protocol in Reduced Ovarian Reserve Patients: A Historical Cohort Study
Firouzeh Akbari Asbagh¹, Zahra Dehbashi¹, Mahmood Moosazadeh², Amirhossien Pourmand³, Mahbod Ebrahimi¹, Naghmeh Pourmand⁴, Parvin Akbari Asbagh⁵
¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ²Health Sciences Research Center, Addiction Institute, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran ³School of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ⁴Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ⁵Department of Pediatrics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
IJWHR 2019; 7: 180-184 DOI: 10.15296/ijwhr.2019.30 Viewed : 2819 times Downloaded : 2513 times. Keywords : Fixed, Flexible, Ovarian
Full Text(PDF) \| Related Articles
Abstract

Objectives: The antagonist of gonadotropin-releasing hormone is proven to be effective and safe in preventing a surge in luteinizing hormone (LH) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. In addition, the differentiation of GnRH antagonist protocols is in timing the initiation of the GnRH antagonist. The present study aimed to compare fixed versus flexible antagonist regimens in patients with reduced ovarian reserve in order to identify a better regimen for these patients. Materials and Methods: This study was of a historical cohort type. Totally, 129 patient files were investigated including 48 versus 66 files related to fixed or flexible protocols, respectively. The mean of age, body mass index (BMI), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), and anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH), as well as the mean dose of gonadotropin, the mean length of IVF/ICSI cycles, and the mean counts of oocytes and embryos with grading including good, fair, and poor were compared between the 2 groups. Results: The total and mean consumption of gonadotropin dose (recombinant FSH) in the flexible and fixed groups were significantly different (P = 0.05). However, the mean antagonist (cetrotide) doses in the fixed and flexible groups were not significantly different while it was lower in the flexible group (P = 0.50). Finally, the duration of gonadotropin consumption in IVF/ICSI period was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: In general, the fixed protocol is recommended in patients with reduced ovarian reserve since it is simple to use and more cost effective compared to the flexible protocol.