Back to all available

The effect of growth hormone adjuvant treatment on the number of oocytes retrieved in patients with poor ovarian response who had no viable embryos in their previous IVF cycles

gynecology-and-obstetrics
womens-health

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the efficacy of growth hormone (GH) as an adjuvant treatment for enhancing embryo quantity in patients with poor ovarian response (POR) who previously had no viable embryos in IVF cycles.
Methods: A total of 86 POR patients who without viable embryo in their first IVF cycles were enrolled in this study . Among them, 43 patients in the study group received GH adjuvant treatment in the s econd IVF cycle, while the other 43 patients in the control group without GH adjuvant treatment . Compared are the clinical characteristics between the GH+ cycle and the GH- cycle within the study group, and further compared were the clinical characteristics and IVF outcomes between the study group and the control group.
Results: The self-controlled results showed that GH adjuvant treatment increased the numbers of oocytes retrieved ( P = 0.0 10 ) and bipronuclear (2PN) ( P = 0.0 07 ) and transferable embryos in the study group ( P < 0.001) . While a fter GH adjuvant treatment , the study group had a higher number of oocytes retrieved ( P = 0.0 29 ) and higher luteini z ing hormone ( LH ) level ( P = 0.049) on the HCG trigger day compared to the control group . Multivariate Logistic analysis showed that the LH level on the HCG trigger day in the GH- cycle was an independent factor associated with an increase in oocytes retrieved (OR: 1.1 49 , P = 0.0 38 ).
Conclusion: Our findings indicated that GH adjuvant treatment might improve the number of oocytes retrieved in POR patients who had no viable embryos in their previous IVF cycles.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].