厲丹丹,舒靜
(1.浙江省嵊州市人民醫(yī)院 婦產(chǎn)科,浙江 嵊州 312400;2.浙江大學(xué)醫(yī)學(xué)院邵逸夫醫(yī)院 婦產(chǎn)科,浙江 杭州 310016)
?
促性腺激素釋放激素拮抗劑和激動劑對不孕患者體外受精
——胚胎移植的療效
厲丹丹1,舒靜2
(1.浙江省嵊州市人民醫(yī)院 婦產(chǎn)科,浙江 嵊州 312400;2.浙江大學(xué)醫(yī)學(xué)院邵逸夫醫(yī)院 婦產(chǎn)科,浙江 杭州 310016)
目的 探討促性腺激素釋放激素拮抗劑(gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist,GnRH-ant)方案和GnRH激動劑(gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist,GnRH-a)方案對不孕患者體外受精—胚胎移植(in vitro fertilizati on and embryo transfer, IVF-ET)的不同療效。方法 選取2013年1月~12月于浙江省嵊州市人民醫(yī)院進(jìn)行初次控制性促排卵及IVF-EF助孕的不孕癥患者400例,其中200例采用GnRH-ant方案(低齡組和高齡組),200例采用GnRH-a(低齡組和高齡組)。通過檢測患者的一般情況、治療及妊娠結(jié)果及其臨床意義,確定GnRH拮抗劑方案和GnRH激動劑方案的可行性。結(jié)果 GnRH-ant低齡組(A組)和GnRH-ant高齡組(B組)在Gn使用時間、Gn用量、促排時間、取卵數(shù)及成熟卵數(shù)上,分別低于GnRH-a低齡組和GnRH-a高齡組。其中Gn使用時間、Gn用量和促排時間上差異具有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P<0.05),取卵數(shù)和成熟卵數(shù)無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。 IVF-ET治療妊娠結(jié)果顯示GnRH-ant低齡組和GnRH-ant高齡組在胚胎種植率、臨床妊娠率和流產(chǎn)率上,均分別低于GnRH-a低齡組和GnRH-a高齡組,而持續(xù)妊娠率高于GnRH-a低齡組和GnRH-a高齡組,差異均無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。結(jié)論 對于控制性促排卵及IVF-EF助孕的不孕癥患者,GnRH拮抗劑方案和GnRH激動劑方案臨床妊娠結(jié)果均良好,無明顯差異。
促性腺激素釋放激素;臨床方案;體外受精;胚胎移植;妊娠率
隨著試管嬰兒技術(shù)的發(fā)展和1978年第1例試管嬰兒的誕生,體外受精—胚胎移植(in vitro fertilizati on and embryo transfer,IVF-ET)技術(shù)受到了更加廣泛的關(guān)注[1-3]。促性腺激素釋放激素(gonadotro in releasing hormone,GnRH)對IVF-ET的治療效果能起到良好的改善作用,其中促性腺激素釋放激素激動劑(gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist,GnRH-a)和促性腺激素釋放激素拮抗劑(gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist,GnRH-ant)在臨床中應(yīng)用最為廣泛[4]。GnRH-a的作用機(jī)理是模擬天然促性腺激素釋放激素的效應(yīng),抑制促性腺激素釋放激素的受體,調(diào)節(jié)相關(guān)激素分泌水平[5-7]。但是GnRH-a也存在一些弊端,如增加促排時間,提高驟發(fā)作用及囊腫形成的概率等[8]。GnRH-ant在1991年開始應(yīng)用于臨床,它可以在一定程度上避免GnRH-a的副作用,在治療周期、用藥頻率和用量上有一定優(yōu)勢。目前,GnRH-ant和GnRH-a已成為IVF-ET研究的熱點(diǎn)[9-12]。本實(shí)驗(yàn)通過檢測GnRH-ant高齡組、低齡組及GnRH-a高齡組、低齡組4組不孕患者的一般情況、治療及妊娠結(jié)果及其臨床意義,對拮抗劑方案和激動劑方案進(jìn)行初步研究,探究GnRH拮抗劑方案和GnRH激動劑方案的可行性和使用價值。探究對不孕患者最為有效、安全和經(jīng)濟(jì)的方案,以期為臨床工作作出可行性指導(dǎo)。
1.1 一般資料 選取2013年1月~2013年12月在浙江省嵊州市人民醫(yī)院婦產(chǎn)科行IVF-ET助孕的不孕癥患者400例,其中年齡大于30歲和小于30歲患者各200例。分為GnRH-ant低齡組(A組)和GnRH-ant高齡組(B組),每組各100例。GnRH-a低齡組(C組)和GnRH-a高齡組(D組),每組各100例。比較上述4組患者的一般情況和治療結(jié)果。排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn):子宮因素不孕;結(jié)核病史;輸卵管積水;子宮內(nèi)膜息肉;卵巢高反應(yīng)。納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn):基礎(chǔ)卵泡刺激素<12 U/L;取卵數(shù)>5個;初次接受IVF-ET助孕;卵巢儲備功能正常。本實(shí)驗(yàn)獲得患者知情同意,且全程有本院倫理委員會監(jiān)督。
1.2 方法
1.2.1 促性腺激素釋放激素拮抗劑方案:GnRH-ant方案的步驟和方法見表1。
表1 GnRH-ant方案的操作步驟Tab.1 The operation steps of GnRH-ant plan
1.2.2 促性腺激素釋放激素激動劑方案:GnRH-a方案的步驟和方法見表2。
表2 GnRH-a方案的操作步驟Tab.2 The operation steps of GnRH-a plan
1.3 取卵、黃體支持 在hCG注射36 h后B超引導(dǎo)取卵。4 h后進(jìn)行常規(guī)IVF或ICS受精。3 d后進(jìn)行胚胎移植,并給予黃體支持。肌肉注射黃體酮60 mg/d。取卵后5 d進(jìn)行胚胎移植。
1.4 結(jié)果檢測 妊娠情況判斷:在胚胎移植14 d后,檢測血清hCG水平。28 d后進(jìn)行B超檢查,見宮內(nèi)胎囊和心管搏動即為臨床妊娠。
2.1 2組患者一般情況比較 GnRH-ant低齡組(A組)、GnRH-ant高齡組(B組)、GnRH-a低齡組(C組)和GnRH-a高齡組(D組)4組不孕患者在平均年齡、不孕時長、不孕類別、體質(zhì)量指數(shù)(BMI)及基礎(chǔ)FSH水平相比較,差異均無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。結(jié)果見表3。
表3 各組患者一般情況比較±s)Tab.3 Comparison of patient’s normal ±s)
2.2 患者治療情況比較 GnRH-ant低齡組(A組)和GnRH-ant高齡組(B組)在Gn使用時間、Gn用量、促排時間、取卵數(shù)及成熟卵數(shù)上,分別低于GnRH-a低齡組和GnRH-a高齡組。其中Gn使用時間、Gn用量和促排時間上差異具有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P<0.05),取卵數(shù)和成熟卵數(shù)無明顯統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義,見表4。
表4 患者治療情況比較±s)Tab.4 Comparison of patient’s treatment ±s)
*P<0.05,A組與C組相比較,group A compared with group C;#P<0.05,B組與D組相比較, group B compared with group D
2.3 IVF-ET治療妊娠結(jié)果比較 IVF-ET治療妊娠結(jié)果如表5所示。GnRH-ant低齡組和GnRH-ant高齡組在胚胎種植率、臨床妊娠率和流產(chǎn)率上,均分別低于GnRH-a低齡組和GnRH-a高齡組,而持續(xù)妊娠率高于GnRH-a低齡組和GnRH-a高齡組,差異均無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。
表5 患者治療情況比較Tab.5 Comparison of patient’s treatment
GnRH-ant和GnRH-a方案是目前使用最多的2種控制排卵方案。GnRH-ant可以有效減少卵巢過度刺激綜合征(ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome, OHSS)的發(fā)生,但GnRH-ant的取卵率及妊娠率均較低,限制了GnRH-ant在臨床上的廣泛應(yīng)用[13-15]。隨著臨床經(jīng)驗(yàn)的積累,GnRH-ant方案的臨床妊娠率逐漸提高。目前廣泛應(yīng)用的主要有2種GnRH-ant方案,分別為固定方案和靈活方案[16]。GnRH-a方案可改善卵子的質(zhì)量,提高妊娠率,但也存在驟發(fā)作用、促排卵時間長及用藥量大等問題。如何更有效地使用GnRH-ant和GnRH-a方案已成為生殖醫(yī)學(xué)研究的重點(diǎn)。
3.1 GnRH-ant和GnRH-a方案妊娠結(jié)果比較 本研究中GnRH-ant組的取卵數(shù)和成熟卵數(shù)低于GnRH-a組,但各組的胚胎種植率和臨床妊娠率無明顯的統(tǒng)計學(xué)差異,說明GnRH-ant組和GnRH-a組方案效果相當(dāng)。2010年肖勁松等[3]發(fā)現(xiàn),GnRH-a方案與GnRH-ant方案在臨床妊娠率上無顯著差異。可能與GnRH-ant進(jìn)入臨床后用藥方案不統(tǒng)一和使用GnRH-ant的經(jīng)驗(yàn)不足有關(guān),也可能與GnRH-ant對卵子、胚胎質(zhì)量和子宮內(nèi)膜容受性的影響有關(guān)。
3.2 GnRH-ant和GnRH-a方案Gn用藥量、促排時間比較 本研究發(fā)現(xiàn),與GnRH-a組方案相比較,GnRH-ant組Gn用藥量、促排時間及用藥時間均顯著減少。這提示,GnRH-ant組整體治療時間更短、Gn用藥量更少。這與Simon C等[17]的報道一致,因垂體局部受體脫敏與消耗達(dá)到降調(diào)節(jié)作用,GnRH-a用藥后需1周才能達(dá)到垂體抑制狀態(tài)。因此,GnRH-a方案的Gn用量和促排時間明顯延長。而GnRH-ant可與GnRH受體(GnRH-r)特異性競爭結(jié)合,通過調(diào)節(jié)GnRH-r基因的表達(dá)起到抑制GnRH活性的作用,且在給藥數(shù)小時內(nèi)即可發(fā)揮作用。
綜上所述,對于接受IVF-ET助孕的不孕患者,GnRH-ant方案與GnRH-a方案比較,可獲得同樣滿意的臨床妊娠率,均為不孕患者IVF-ET的首選治療方案,在臨床中可以根據(jù)不同患者的實(shí)際情況靈活選擇。本研究為不孕患者體外受精-胚胎移植的治療提供了新思路。
[1] Lainas TG,Sfontouris IA,Zorzovilis IZ,et a1.Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with polycystie ovary syndrome treated for IVF:a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT)[J].Hum Reprod,2010,25(3):683-689.
[2] Kolibianakis EM,Venetis CA,Kalogeropoulou L,et al.Fixed versus flexible gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist adminitralion in in vitro fertilization:a randomized controlled trial[J].Ferlil Steril,2011,95(2):558-562.
[3] 肖勁松, 陳雙隕, 張春蓮,等.促性腺激素釋放激素拮抗劑在體外受精-胚胎移植中有效性的系統(tǒng)性評價[J].中國循證醫(yī)學(xué)雜志,2010, 10(12):1432-1438.
[4] 楊碩, 陳新娜, 喬杰,等.GnRH拮抗劑固定方案和GnRH激動劑長方案在卵巢儲備功能正常的不孕患者初次IVF-ET中的療效比較[J].中華婦產(chǎn)科雜志,2012,47(4):245-249.
[5] Lainas TG,Sfontouris IA,Zorzovilis IZ,et a1.Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with polycystie ovary syndrome treated for IVF:a prospective randomized controlled trial(RCT)[J].Hum Reprod,2010,25(3):683-689.
[6] Kolibianakis EM,Venetis CA,Kalogeropoulou L,et al.Fixed versus flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist adminitralion in in vitro fertilization:a randomized controlled trial[J].Ferlil Steril,2011,95(2):558-562.
[7] Carranza A,Faya M,Merlo ML,et al.Effect of GnRH analogs in postnatal domestic cats[J].Theriogenology,2014,82(1):138-143.
[8] Taneja SS.Cardiovascular morbidity associated with gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists and anantagonist[J].J Uro,2014,191(4):985-986.
[9] Kim CH,Ahn JW,You RM,et al.Combined administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist with human chorionic gonadotropin for final oocyte maturation in GnRH antagonist cycles for in vitro fertilization[J].Reprod Med,2014,59(1):63-68.
[10] Lai Q,Zhang H,Zhu G,et al.Comparison of the GnRH agonist and antagonist protocol on the same patients in assisted reproduction during controlled ovarian stimulation cycles[J].Int J Clin Exp Pathol,2013,16(9):1903-1910.
[11] Pu D,Wu J,Liu J.Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF[J].Hum Reprod,2011,26(10):2742-2749.
[12] Cota AM,Oliveira JB,Petersen CG,et al.GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction cycles:oocyte morphology[J].Reprod Biol Endocrinol,2012:10(1):33-34.
[13] Lai Q,Chen C,Zhang Z,et al.The significance of antral follicle size prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian response in a multiple dose GnRH antagonist protocol[J].Int J Clin Exp Pathol,2013,6(30):258-266.
[14] Prapas Y,Petousis S,Dagklis T,et al.GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor IVF responders:a randomized clinical trial[J].Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol,2013,166(12):43-46.
[15] Lavorato HL,Oliveira JB,Petersen CG,et al.GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in IVF/ICSI cycles with recombinant LH supplementation:DNA fragmentation and apoptosis in granulosa cells[J].Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol,2012;165(1):61-65.
[16] Berardelli R,Gianotti L,Karamouzis I,et al.Effects of cetrorelix,a GnRH-receptor antagonist,on gonadal axis in women with functional hypothalamic amenorrhea[J].Gynecol Endocrinol,2011,27(3):753-758.[17] Simon C,Oberyé J,Bellver J,et al.Similar endometrial development in oocyte donors treated with either high-or standard-dose GnRH antagonist compared to treatment with a GnRH agonist or in natural cycles[J]. Hum Reprod,2005,20(12):3318-3327.
(編校:譚玲)
Effect of gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists and agonists on vitro fertilization and embryo transfer of patients with infertility
LI Dan-dan1,SHU Jing2
(1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The People’s Hospital of Shengzhou, Shengzhou 312400, China; 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shao Yifu Hospital of Medical College of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310016, China)
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist(GnRH-ant)protocol and gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist(GnRH-a) protocol in infertile patients of their first vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycle.Methods400 cases selected in Shengzhou people’s hospital from January 2013 to December 2013 undergoing the first controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and IVF-EF assisted reprodution, of which 200 cases using GnRH-ant scheme (young group and old group), and 200 cases were treated with GnRH-a (young group and old group).Through the detection of the general condition of patients, therapy,outcome of pregnancy and its clinical significance, to determine the GnRH-ant and GnRH-a feasibility.ResultsGnRH-ant young group (group A) and GnRH-ant old group (group B) were lower than the GnRH-a young group and GnRH-a elderly group in Gn time, Gn dosage, promoting excretion time, oocyte and mature oocyte number, respectively, which Gn time, Gn dosage and promoting excretion time had statistical significance (P<0.05), oocyte and mature oocyte number with no statistical significance.GnRH-ant young group (group A) and GnRH-ant old group (group B) were lower than the GnRH-a young group and GnRH-a elderly group in embryo implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and abortion rate, respectively, while ongoing pregnancy rate was higher, but with no statistical significance. ConclusionFor the infertility patients of control ovarian hgperstimulation and IVF-EF assisted reprodution, clinical pregnancy outcomes are good of GnRH-ant scheme and GnRH-a scheme, with no obvious difference.
gonadotropin releasing hormone; clinical protocols; fertilization in vitro; embryo transfer; pregnancy rate
2011年浙江省醫(yī)藥衛(wèi)生計劃(2011KYA085)
厲丹丹, 女,本科,主治醫(yī)師,研究方向:婦科內(nèi)分泌,不孕不育,E-mail:qch1821460010@163.com。
R321
A
1005-1678(2015)02-0149-03