» Articles » PMID: 12202415

Luteal Phase Support in Infertility Treatment: a Meta-analysis of the Randomized Trials

Overview
Journal Hum Reprod
Date 2002 Aug 31
PMID 12202415
Citations 45
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The addition of GnRH agonist to the treatment regimen in women undergoing IVF cycles is thought to create a luteal phase defect. In an attempt to correct for this, many practitioners supplement with a variety of steroid hormones in the luteal phase.

Methods: To determine whether luteal phase support increases reproductive success in modern IVF cycles, a systematic review of the literature was performed. Meta-analyses were conducted when multiple homogeneous studies addressed a single issue. Only randomized controlled trials were included in the data analysis. The efficacy of supplementation, as well as the optimal route, formulation, dose, and length of administration were queried.

Results: Luteal supplementation with either i.m. hCG or i.m. progesterone significantly improved fertility outcomes compared with no treatment. When comparing i.m. progesterone with i.m. hCG, no fertility differences were found. Intramuscular progesterone conferred the most benefit compared with oral or vaginal use. Addition of oral estrogen to progesterone also improved implantation rates.

Conclusion: Given the increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome associated with hCG use, i.m. progesterone is favoured for luteal phase supplementation with the addition of estrogen.

Citing Articles

Comparing the outcomes of in-vitro fertilization in patients receiving vaginal, subcutaneous, and intramuscular progesterone for luteal phase support: a three-armed randomized controlled trial.

Tehraninejad E, Alizadeh S, Nekoo E, Zargarzadeh N, Shariat M, Haghollahi F BMC Womens Health. 2024; 24(1):481.

PMID: 39223536 PMC: 11367876. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-024-03337-z.


Hotspots and frontiers in luteal phase defect research: An in-depth global trend bibliometric and visualization analysis over a 52-year period.

Shi L, Cui L, Yang L, He L, Jia L, Bai W Heliyon. 2024; 10(15):e35088.

PMID: 39170162 PMC: 11336435. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35088.


The Impact of Progesterone Administration Routes on Endometrial Receptivity and Clinical Outcomes in Assisted Reproductive Technology Cycles.

Gajjar H, Banker J, Murarka S, Shah P, Shah N, Bhaskaran L Cureus. 2024; 16(6):e62571.

PMID: 39027776 PMC: 11255535. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.62571.


Progesterone in Pregnancy: Evidence-Based Strategies to Reduce Miscarriage and Enhance Assisted Reproductive Technology.

Lai T, Teng S, Chang C, Huang C Med Sci Monit. 2024; 30:e943400.

PMID: 38501164 PMC: 10929293. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.943400.


Comparison of pregnancy rates in antagonist cycles after luteal support with GnRH-agonist versus progesterone: prospective randomized study.

Buhbut E, Nabulsi R, Avigdor G, Ben-Ami I Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023; 308(1):255-263.

PMID: 37186265 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-023-07017-5.