Comparação entre dois protocolos para estimulação ovariana com agonista/antagonista do hormônio liberador de gonadotrofinas (GnRH) em mulheres submetidas ao primeiro ciclo de reprodução assistida

• Ano de defesa: 2013
• Autor(a) principal: Arruda, Jalsi Tacon
• Orientador(a): Approbato, Mário Silva
• Banca de defesa: Approbato, Mário Silva, Barbosa, Maria ALves, Bérgamo, Nádia Aparecida, Siriano, Liliane da Rocha
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal de Goiás
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-graduação em Ciências da Saúde (FM)
• Departamento: Faculdade de Medicina - FM (RG)
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Hormônio liberador de gonadotrofina; GnRH agonista; Indução da ovulação; Infertilidade; GnRH antagonista
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone; GnRH agonist; GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation; Infertility
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::MEDICINA
• Link de acesso: http://repositorio.bc.ufg.br/tede/handle/tede/3814

Infertility affects more couples and assisted reproduction techniques offer a possibility of treatment and the chance of having a child. Thus, the first attempt to ovulation induction is critical to the success of the cycle or even for future attempts is successful. Objective: To compare the protocols using GnRH agonist or antagonist for ovarian stimulation in normo-responders undergoing the first cycle of IVF/ICSI. Methods: we conducted a literature review on the history of ovulation induction controlled by medications. From the data available in the database of electronic medical records SISFERT used in the Laboratory of Human Reproduction (LabRep-HC-FM-UFG) a comparative retrospective observational study was conducted with 50 patients divided into two groups according to protocol: GnRH-agonist (leuprolide acetate 1 mg/day short protocol) or GnRHantagonist (Cetrorelix 0.25 mg/day), which received 150 IU/day of rFSH (follitropin alpha) and 250 µg of rhCG (alpha-coriogonadotrofina) in both groups. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed in the days of stimulation with rFSH, total dose of gonadotropin, days of use of GnRH, GnRH dose and total number of follicles (≥ 16 mm) on the day of the group rhCG GnRH agonist. There was no significant difference in other parameters, however, the number of oocytes retrieved was slightly higher in the GnRH agonist, but fertilization rate was higher in the GnRH-antagonist. Pregnancy rates and clinical chemistry were similar in both groups. Conclusions: although no significant differences in the results analyzed, the use of flexible antagonist protocol facilitates the handling and enables the patient using much lower doses of gonadotropins itself as the antagonist, reducing the cost of treatment when compared to the protocol with GnRH agonist.