Comparison of HCG Trigger versus Dual Trigger in Improving Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Different Ovarian Responses: A Retrospective Study

Objective. During in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment, the reproductive endocrine regulatory mechanisms hold pivotal importance. Specifically, the serum estradiol (E2) level during ovulation emerges as a critical factor influencing pregnancy outcomes. This retrospective study a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ke Xu, Jinrong Wang, Shuangshuang Yang, Zhenjing Wang, Ning Hou, Mei Sun
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2024-01-01
Series:International Journal of Endocrinology
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2024/2507026
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832546220677005312
author Ke Xu
Jinrong Wang
Shuangshuang Yang
Zhenjing Wang
Ning Hou
Mei Sun
author_facet Ke Xu
Jinrong Wang
Shuangshuang Yang
Zhenjing Wang
Ning Hou
Mei Sun
author_sort Ke Xu
collection DOAJ
description Objective. During in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment, the reproductive endocrine regulatory mechanisms hold pivotal importance. Specifically, the serum estradiol (E2) level during ovulation emerges as a critical factor influencing pregnancy outcomes. This retrospective study aimed to comprehensively compare two common clinical regimens based on the grouping of serum E2 levels and the number of oocytes retrieved on the trigger day. Our objective was to evaluate the pregnancy outcomes in IVF-ET patients across different ovarian response groups, exploring the efficacy of the dual-trigger and single-trigger regimens to provide valuable insights for optimizing clinical strategies in the context of IVF-ET. Methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 2778 infertile patients who underwent ART (IVF/ICSI). Subsequently, a detailed statistical analysis was performed on 1032 patients following an antagonist regimen. Participants were categorized into single-trigger and dual-trigger groups based on real-world trigger protocols, considering different ovarian responses. Comprehensive statistical assessments were conducted on baseline characteristics, ovulation induction, and pregnancy outcomes. Results. Baseline characteristics and cycle parameters among the three patient groups (high ovarian response, normal response, and poor response) exhibited no significant differences between the dual-trigger and single-trigger regimen groups. Despite the dual-trigger regimen utilizing a significantly lower HCG dose, no notable discrepancies were observed in laboratory results and pregnancy outcomes (embryo transfer rate, pregnancy rate, and live birth rate) for normal and high responders. Remarkably, E2 levels were higher in the dual-trigger group compared to the single-trigger group. In high and normal responders, the dual-trigger regimen demonstrated increased oocyte counts and oocyte acquisition rates, coupled with decreased transfer cancellation rates attributed to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Intriguingly, patients with a poor ovarian response experienced no graft cancellations due to OHSS prevention in either group. Conclusion. For patients with high and normal ovarian responses, the utilization of a dual-trigger regimen on the trigger day effectively mitigates the risk of OHSS. Our large sample study supports the substitutability of the dual-trigger regimen over the single-trigger regimen without compromising pregnancy outcomes. However, this conclusion is not applicable to patients with poor ovarian responses. The results of this study highlight the necessity of adopting a customized and individualized treatment approach that should be based on the patient’s ovarian response. Additionally, recognizing the pivotal role of the endocrine environment in influencing pregnancy outcomes and the occurrence of OHSS, further exploration of the effects of different triggering regimens on endocrine parameters is warranted. Such investigations will contribute to enhancing the reproductive outcomes of IVF-ET technology.
format Article
id doaj-art-cc119f091cce4f0ab0c8f7743ad36ffc
institution Kabale University
issn 1687-8345
language English
publishDate 2024-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series International Journal of Endocrinology
spelling doaj-art-cc119f091cce4f0ab0c8f7743ad36ffc2025-02-03T07:23:39ZengWileyInternational Journal of Endocrinology1687-83452024-01-01202410.1155/2024/2507026Comparison of HCG Trigger versus Dual Trigger in Improving Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Different Ovarian Responses: A Retrospective StudyKe Xu0Jinrong Wang1Shuangshuang Yang2Zhenjing Wang3Ning Hou4Mei Sun5Center for Reproductive MedicineCenter for Reproductive MedicineShandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical UniversityCenter for Reproductive MedicineShandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical UniversityCenter for Reproductive MedicineObjective. During in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment, the reproductive endocrine regulatory mechanisms hold pivotal importance. Specifically, the serum estradiol (E2) level during ovulation emerges as a critical factor influencing pregnancy outcomes. This retrospective study aimed to comprehensively compare two common clinical regimens based on the grouping of serum E2 levels and the number of oocytes retrieved on the trigger day. Our objective was to evaluate the pregnancy outcomes in IVF-ET patients across different ovarian response groups, exploring the efficacy of the dual-trigger and single-trigger regimens to provide valuable insights for optimizing clinical strategies in the context of IVF-ET. Methods. A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 2778 infertile patients who underwent ART (IVF/ICSI). Subsequently, a detailed statistical analysis was performed on 1032 patients following an antagonist regimen. Participants were categorized into single-trigger and dual-trigger groups based on real-world trigger protocols, considering different ovarian responses. Comprehensive statistical assessments were conducted on baseline characteristics, ovulation induction, and pregnancy outcomes. Results. Baseline characteristics and cycle parameters among the three patient groups (high ovarian response, normal response, and poor response) exhibited no significant differences between the dual-trigger and single-trigger regimen groups. Despite the dual-trigger regimen utilizing a significantly lower HCG dose, no notable discrepancies were observed in laboratory results and pregnancy outcomes (embryo transfer rate, pregnancy rate, and live birth rate) for normal and high responders. Remarkably, E2 levels were higher in the dual-trigger group compared to the single-trigger group. In high and normal responders, the dual-trigger regimen demonstrated increased oocyte counts and oocyte acquisition rates, coupled with decreased transfer cancellation rates attributed to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Intriguingly, patients with a poor ovarian response experienced no graft cancellations due to OHSS prevention in either group. Conclusion. For patients with high and normal ovarian responses, the utilization of a dual-trigger regimen on the trigger day effectively mitigates the risk of OHSS. Our large sample study supports the substitutability of the dual-trigger regimen over the single-trigger regimen without compromising pregnancy outcomes. However, this conclusion is not applicable to patients with poor ovarian responses. The results of this study highlight the necessity of adopting a customized and individualized treatment approach that should be based on the patient’s ovarian response. Additionally, recognizing the pivotal role of the endocrine environment in influencing pregnancy outcomes and the occurrence of OHSS, further exploration of the effects of different triggering regimens on endocrine parameters is warranted. Such investigations will contribute to enhancing the reproductive outcomes of IVF-ET technology.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2024/2507026
spellingShingle Ke Xu
Jinrong Wang
Shuangshuang Yang
Zhenjing Wang
Ning Hou
Mei Sun
Comparison of HCG Trigger versus Dual Trigger in Improving Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Different Ovarian Responses: A Retrospective Study
International Journal of Endocrinology
title Comparison of HCG Trigger versus Dual Trigger in Improving Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Different Ovarian Responses: A Retrospective Study
title_full Comparison of HCG Trigger versus Dual Trigger in Improving Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Different Ovarian Responses: A Retrospective Study
title_fullStr Comparison of HCG Trigger versus Dual Trigger in Improving Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Different Ovarian Responses: A Retrospective Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of HCG Trigger versus Dual Trigger in Improving Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Different Ovarian Responses: A Retrospective Study
title_short Comparison of HCG Trigger versus Dual Trigger in Improving Pregnancy Outcomes in Patients with Different Ovarian Responses: A Retrospective Study
title_sort comparison of hcg trigger versus dual trigger in improving pregnancy outcomes in patients with different ovarian responses a retrospective study
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2024/2507026
work_keys_str_mv AT kexu comparisonofhcgtriggerversusdualtriggerinimprovingpregnancyoutcomesinpatientswithdifferentovarianresponsesaretrospectivestudy
AT jinrongwang comparisonofhcgtriggerversusdualtriggerinimprovingpregnancyoutcomesinpatientswithdifferentovarianresponsesaretrospectivestudy
AT shuangshuangyang comparisonofhcgtriggerversusdualtriggerinimprovingpregnancyoutcomesinpatientswithdifferentovarianresponsesaretrospectivestudy
AT zhenjingwang comparisonofhcgtriggerversusdualtriggerinimprovingpregnancyoutcomesinpatientswithdifferentovarianresponsesaretrospectivestudy
AT ninghou comparisonofhcgtriggerversusdualtriggerinimprovingpregnancyoutcomesinpatientswithdifferentovarianresponsesaretrospectivestudy
AT meisun comparisonofhcgtriggerversusdualtriggerinimprovingpregnancyoutcomesinpatientswithdifferentovarianresponsesaretrospectivestudy