PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
August 16, 2025Frontiers in Endocrinology0 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of clinical outcomes between flexible antagonist protocol and long luteal phase protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve function: a prospective cohort study

View Full Paper
TYTian YingHJHao JingXTXueliang Tu

Key Points

  • Results showed no significant differences in clinical pregnancy rates between flexible antagonist and long luteal phase protocols.
  • Clinical pregnancy rates were 54.8% for Group A and 56.8% for Group B, with no differences in live birth or OHSS rates.
  • This prospective cohort study conducted at a reproductive medicine center compared two ovarian stimulation protocols.
  • Overall, younger age and higher ovarian reserve markers significantly predicted the chances of clinical pregnancy.

Abstract

Objective Ovarian stimulation protocols play a pivotal role in the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments. This study compares the clinical outcomes of the long luteal phase GnRH agonist protocol and the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve. Methods This prospective cohort study was conducted at the Reproductive Medicine Center, Sanmenxia Hospital, Yellow River, from March 2021 to September 2023. Patients with normal ovarian reserve were enrolled and randomly assigned by a 1:3 ratio to either the long luteal phase protocol (Group A, n=42) or the flexible antagonist protocol (Group B, n=118). Data on patient characteristics, ovarian response, and embryological outcomes were collected and analyzed. Clinical outcomes, including clinical pregnancy, live birth rates, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence, were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors associated with clinical pregnancy. Results There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups ( P 0.05). In terms of primary clinical outcomes, there were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy rate (54.8% vs . 56.8%, P =0.092), live birth rate (47.6% vs . 52.5%, P =0.278), or incidence of OHSS (0% vs . 2.5%, P =0.055) between Group A and Group B. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified significant predictors of clinical pregnancy, including younger age (OR = 0.956, P = 0.042), higher AFC (OR = 1.127, P = 0.018), higher AMH levels (OR = 1.357, P = 0.005), greater endometrial thickness (OR = 1.162, P = 0.021), higher number of oocytes retrieved (OR = 1.234, P = 0.023), and better embryo quality (Grade I-II) (OR = 1.485, P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed between age-related subgroups ( P 0.05), but success rates decreased with increasing age, highlighting age as a key factor influencing IVF/ICSI outcomes. Conclusion The study found no significant differences in primary clinical outcomes between the two groups. However, younger age, higher AFC, higher AMH levels, greater endometrial thickness, higher number of oocytes retrieved, and better embryo quality were significant predictors of clinical pregnancy.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ying et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68a366a20a429f797332c80chttps://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2025.1526895
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper