Recombinant follicular stimulating hormone plus recombinant luteinizing hormone versus human menopausal gonadotropins- does the source of LH bioactivity affect ovarian stimulation outcome?

OBJECTIVE: Luteinizing hormone (LH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) activate distinct intracellular signaling cascades. However, due to their similar structure and common receptor, they are used interchangeably during ovarian stimulation (OS). This study aims to assess if the source of LH used during OS affects IVF outcome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a cross sectional study of patients who underwent two consecutive IVF cycles, one included recombinant follicular stimulating hormone (FSH) plus recombinant LH [rFSH+rLH, (Pergoveris)] and the other included urinary hCG [highly purified hMG (HP-hMG), (Menopur)]. The OS protocol, except of the LH preparation, was identical in the two IVF cycles. RESULTS: The rate of mature oocytes was not different between the treatment cycles (0.9 in the rFSH+rLH vs 0.8 in the HP-hMG, p = 0.07). Nonetheless, the mean number of mature oocytes retrieved in the rFSH+rLH treatment cycles was higher compared to the HP-hMG treatment cycles (10 ± 5.8 vs 8.3 ± 4.6, respectively, P = 0.01). Likewise, the mean number of fertilized oocytes was higher in the rFSH+rLH cycles compared with the HP-hMG cycles (8.5 ± 5.9 vs 6.4 ± 3.6, respectively, p = 0.05). There was no difference between the treatment cycles regarding the number of top-quality embryos, the ratio of top-quality embryos per number of oocytes retrieved or fertilized oocytes or the pregnancy rate. CONCLUSION: The differences in treatment outcome, derived by different LH preparations reflect the distinct physiological role of these molecules. Our findings may assist in tailoring a specific gonadotropin regimen when assembling an OS protocol.

Prenatal Brain Imaging in Isolated vs. Complicated Club Foot: A Cohort Study.

Purpose: Talipes equinovarus (TEV) is a common birth defect. Differentiation between isolated and complex TEV is fundamental due to its effect on prognosis. Association between TEV and poor neurological outcome is more prominent in complex cases and highlights the significance of brain evaluation. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the contribution of fetal brain MRI to sonographic evaluation. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study we evaluated charts of all pregnant patients referred for fetal brain MRI due to fetal TEV between 1/1/2011 and 12/31/14 in a single tertiary referral center. Isolated and complex TEV were differentiated according to associated anomalies. Brain US and MRI results were compared. Results: 28 pregnant patients were included with an average gestation and parity of 2.5 and 1.5, respectively. Both isolated and complicated TEV groups included 14 fetuses after initial TEV diagnosis on anatomical survey. Brain sonography and MRI were normal among 12/14 patients with isolated TEV while two patients were later diagnosed with mild ventriculomegaly. US brain evaluation has revealed pathologic findings in 4 (28.6 %) cases in the complicated TEV group, while MRI demonstrated abnormal findings in 8 (57.1 %) fetuses with notable severity diversity. In 6 cases, MRI diagnosed additional pathologies which were not demonstrated by US. Conclusion: Brain fetal MRI is an efficient tool during antenatal evaluation of complicated TEV with a high percentage of additional findings not demonstrated songraphically while its efficacy in isolated cases is in doubt. The current study expands the relevance of fetal brain MRI in cases of non-CNS anomalies.