Follicular flushing in natural cycle IVF does not affect the luteal phase - a prospective controlled study.

In contrast to multifollicular IVF, follicular flushing seems to increase the efficacy of monofollicular IVF treatments such as natural cycle IVF (NC-IVF). However, because follicular flushing causes loss of granulosa cells, it might negatively affect luteal phase length and endocrine function of the luteal body. A prospective cohort Phase II study was performed in 24 women undergoing NC-IVF. Women underwent a reference cycle with human chorionic gonadotrophin-induced ovulation without follicle aspiration and analysis of the length of the luteal phase and luteal concentrations of progesterone and oestradiol. In addition, they underwent a NC-IVF cycle which was performed identically but follicles were aspirated and flushed three times. The luteal phase was shorter in 29.2%, equal in 16.7% and longer in 50.0% of cases following flushing of the follicles. Overall, neither difference in luteal phase length was significant [median duration (interquartile range) in reference cycle: 13 (12; 14.5), IVF (flushing) cycle: 14 (12.5; 14.5), median difference (95% CI): 0.5 (-0.5 to 1.5)] nor median progesterone and oestradiol concentrations. In conclusion, follicular flushing in NC-IVF affects neither the length of the luteal phase nor the luteal phase concentrations of progesterone and oestradiol, questioning the need for luteal phase supplementation.

Dydrogesterone vs progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of dydrogesterone and progesterone for luteal-phase support (LPS) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART). METHODS: We performed a systematic review to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry and WHO ICTRP. RESULTS: The last search was performed in October 2015. Eight RCTs were considered eligible and were included in the review and meta-analyses. There was no relevant difference between oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for LPS with respect to rate of ongoing pregnancy (risk ratio (RR), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.92-1.18); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 3134 women), clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.93-1.23); I(2) , 34%; eight RCTs, 3809 women) or miscarriage (RR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53-1.10); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 906 clinical pregnancies). Two of the three studies reporting on dissatisfaction of treatment identified lower levels of dissatisfaction among women using oral dydrogesterone than among women using vaginal progesterone (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 2/79 (2.5%) vs 90/351 (25.6%), respectively; oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone gel: 19/411 (4.6%) vs 74/411 (18.0%), respectively). The third study showed no difference in dissatisfaction rate (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 8/96 (8.3%) vs 8/114 (7.0%), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Oral dydrogesterone seems to be as effective as vaginal progesterone for LPS in ART cycles, and appears to be better tolerated . Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.