No abstract

No abstract

Background: Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol is reported as an alternative method of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge suppression. How much dosage of chlormadinone acetate (CMA), a synthetic progestin, is appropriate treatment for this phenomenon? Methods: Retrospective case control study was performed at private assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinic in Japan. Collected data was 231 cycles in patients who underwent either PPOS protocol using 12, 6, 4, or 2 mg of CMA, groups 6C, 3C, 2C, and 1C, respectively (total, 113 cycles), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol, groups 6A, 3A, 2A, and 1A, respectively (total, 118 cycles). In the CMA group, CMA and human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) or follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) were administered simultaneously beginning on menstrual cycle day 3. Serum P, E2, and LH were determined on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration. Occurrence of premature LH surge was compared between two groups. Pregnancy outcomes were also calculated. Results: Premature LH surge was completely suppressed in CMA groups 6C, 3C, and 2C. On the other hand, this phenomenon was detected in antagonist method groups (5.9%, 7/118). But spontaneous ovulation was not observed in any group, and clinical outcomes are equal to those of GnRH antagonist treatment. Conclusions: Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) using CMA can be an appropriate alternative progestin for PPOS protocol. Since CMA is an oral medication, this method can be easy to conduct and cost-effective compared with the antagonist method. From our observation, we suggest 4 mg/day of CMA can control the egg retrieval cycle without LH surge occurrence as in other PPOS methods.

Oocyte vitrification is one of the methods for preserving fertility of cancer patients. In 2013, we reported a successful live birth using cryopreserved oocytes from a patient who contracted Ph-positive acute lymphoid leukemia at the retrieval age of 20. In this report, we described a second live birth from the same patient. The patient visited our clinic in November 2018 hoping to utilize vitrified oocytes cryopreserved in 2007. As a result, a day 3 single eight-cell stage embryo was transferred in a hormone replacement therapy cycle. She became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy girl (2,740 g) in September 2019. This is a case report of two live births from 10 matured oocytes that had been preserved for 12 years.

Background:The clinical value of personalized embryo transfer (pET) guided by the endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) tests for recurrent implantation failure (RIF) cases is still unclear. The aim of this study is to clarify the efficacy of ERA leading to personalization of the day of embryo transfer (ET) in RIF patients. Methods: A retrospective study was performed for 94 patients with RIF who underwent ERA between July 2015 and December 2019. Pregnancy outcomes in a previous vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (previous VBT) and a personalized vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (pVBT) in identical patients were compared. The details of each pVBT were further analyzed between patients in a non-displaced group, which indicated “receptive” cases in ERA results and those who were in the displaced group, which indicated “non-receptive” cases. Results:When the pregnancy rate, both per patient and per transfer cycle, of previous VBT and pVBT were compared, a significant increase in pVBT was observed between the two methods (5.3% vs. 62.8%, 4.4% vs. 47.9%, respectively). The pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and clinical pregnancy rates of the first pVBT were significantly higher in the displaced group than the non-displaced group. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate of the displaced group tended to be higher compared to that of the non-displaced group in the first pVBT, although the difference was not statistically significant (51.0% vs. 31.1%, [Formula: see text] = 0.06). Conclusions:Our study demonstrates that pVBT guided by ERA tests may improve pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients whose window of implantation (WOI) is displaced, and its effect may be more pronounced at the first pVBT. The displacement of WOI may be considered to be one of the causes of RIF, and its adjustment may contribute to the improvement of pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients.