These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Vaginal micronized progesterone versus intramuscular progesterone for luteal support in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Author: Mitwally MF, Diamond MP, Abuzeid M. Journal: Fertil Steril; 2010 Feb; 93(2):554-69. PubMed ID: 19362305. Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To study the outcome of IVF-ET in women who used vaginal P (vaginal P(4)) versus those who used P in oil via IM injection (IM-P(4)) for luteal support. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary referral infertility center. PATIENT(S): A cohort of 544 women. INTERVENTION(S): In 145 women, vaginal P(4) was used, while in 399 women, IM-P(4) was used for luteal support. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes included other IVF-ET outcomes: rates of clinical pregnancy and pregnancy loss (chemical and miscarriage) and serum P levels during the luteal phase and early pregnancy. RESULT(S): Women who used vaginal P(4) for luteal support had ongoing pregnancy rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.0675; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7587-1.5020) and rates of total pregnancy loss (OR, 1.0775; 95% CI, 0.7383-1.5727) that were not statistically different from those who used IM-P(4). During the luteal phase, women who used vaginal P(4) had mean serum P levels that were not statistically different from those who used IM-P(4). However, during early pregnancy, mean P levels in pregnant women who used vaginal P(4) were statistically significantly higher. CONCLUSION(S): In women undergoing IVF-ET according to the GnRH agonist long protocol, luteal support with vaginal P(4) was associated with treatment outcomes that were no different from those associated with IM-P(4) luteal support.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]