Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The comparison of two different luteal phase support in ivf patients

Year 1998, Volume: 11 Issue: 4, 197 - 200, 01.10.1998

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this retrospective study was to compare 2 different methods of luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization patients after embryo transfer.

Methods: In 101 embryo transferred cycles 35 of the patients were given hCG supplemental (starting the day before embryo transfer 1500 III every 3 days for 6 times), 54 of them were given progesterone in oil (50 mg/day, IM injection, 20 days) randomly, except when E2 levels exceeded 3000 pg/ml. We had 9 pregnancies in hCG group, 10 with progesterone group.

Results: The comparison of results showed no significant difference between the 2 groups. Of the 9 patients who used hCG 6 aborted, of the 10 pregnant patients in progesterone group, 4 aborted.

Conclusion: There was no difference from pregnancy rate point of view, but hCG group had a trend to abort more frequently (Fischer’s exact test, p=0.06).

References

  • Leeton J, Trounson A, Jessup D. Support of the luteal phase in in vitro fertilization programs: a result of a controlled trial with intramuscular proluton. J In vitro fértil Embryo Transfer 1985;2:166-169.
Year 1998, Volume: 11 Issue: 4, 197 - 200, 01.10.1998

Abstract

References

  • Leeton J, Trounson A, Jessup D. Support of the luteal phase in in vitro fertilization programs: a result of a controlled trial with intramuscular proluton. J In vitro fértil Embryo Transfer 1985;2:166-169.
There are 1 citations in total.

Details

Subjects Clinical Sciences
Journal Section Derleme
Authors

S. Kara Soysal This is me

H. Zeyneloglu This is me

M. Doğan This is me

A. Z. Işık This is me

B. B. Gülekli This is me

O. Gökmen This is me

Publication Date October 1, 1998
Published in Issue Year 1998 Volume: 11 Issue: 4

Cite

APA Kara Soysal, S., Zeyneloglu, H., Doğan, M., Işık, A. Z., et al. (1998). The comparison of two different luteal phase support in ivf patients. Marmara Medical Journal, 11(4), 197-200.
AMA Kara Soysal S, Zeyneloglu H, Doğan M, Işık AZ, B. Gülekli B, Gökmen O. The comparison of two different luteal phase support in ivf patients. Marmara Med J. October 1998;11(4):197-200.
Chicago Kara Soysal, S., H. Zeyneloglu, M. Doğan, A. Z. Işık, B. B. Gülekli, and O. Gökmen. “The Comparison of Two Different Luteal Phase Support in Ivf Patients”. Marmara Medical Journal 11, no. 4 (October 1998): 197-200.
EndNote Kara Soysal S, Zeyneloglu H, Doğan M, Işık AZ, B. Gülekli B, Gökmen O (October 1, 1998) The comparison of two different luteal phase support in ivf patients. Marmara Medical Journal 11 4 197–200.
IEEE S. Kara Soysal, H. Zeyneloglu, M. Doğan, A. Z. Işık, B. B. Gülekli, and O. Gökmen, “The comparison of two different luteal phase support in ivf patients”, Marmara Med J, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 197–200, 1998.
ISNAD Kara Soysal, S. et al. “The Comparison of Two Different Luteal Phase Support in Ivf Patients”. Marmara Medical Journal 11/4 (October 1998), 197-200.
JAMA Kara Soysal S, Zeyneloglu H, Doğan M, Işık AZ, B. Gülekli B, Gökmen O. The comparison of two different luteal phase support in ivf patients. Marmara Med J. 1998;11:197–200.
MLA Kara Soysal, S. et al. “The Comparison of Two Different Luteal Phase Support in Ivf Patients”. Marmara Medical Journal, vol. 11, no. 4, 1998, pp. 197-00.
Vancouver Kara Soysal S, Zeyneloglu H, Doğan M, Işık AZ, B. Gülekli B, Gökmen O. The comparison of two different luteal phase support in ivf patients. Marmara Med J. 1998;11(4):197-200.