Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2024 May 28;24(1):393.
doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06589-7.

Safety profiles of offspring born from early-follicular long-acting GnRH agonist protocol and daily mid-luteal GnRH agonist protocol: a retrospective study

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Safety profiles of offspring born from early-follicular long-acting GnRH agonist protocol and daily mid-luteal GnRH agonist protocol: a retrospective study

Linqing Du et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. .

Abstract

Background: The gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH-a) have been widely used for controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology (ART). The early-follicular long-acting GnRH-a long protocol (EFL) and the luteal phase short-acting GnRH-a long protocol (LPS) are commonly used GnRH agonist protocols. We conducted a retrospective analysis to assess and compare the rates of congenital abnormalities and safety profiles in offspring born from the EFL and LPS protocols.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to analyze and compare neonatal data from patients who using EFL or LPS protocols at our center between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2017. The study ultimately included 1810 neonates from 1401 cycles using the EFL protocol and 2700 neonates from 2129 cycles using the LPS protocol.The main outcome measures are gestational age at delivery, birth weight, and congenital anomaly rate.To assess the influence of various factors on congenital abnormalities, a random-effects logistic regression model was employed.

Results: The EFL and LPS protocols led to similar congenital anomaly rates (1.64% vs. 2.35%, P = 0.149). No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding birth weight and its categories, newborn gender and congenital anomaly rate. The results of the multivariate logistic regression model indicated no association between congenital anomaly and BMI, duration of infertility, treatment protocol, fertilization method, or embryo transfer stage. Compared with singleton pregnancies, the probability of congenital defects in multiple pregnancies was 2.64 times higher (OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.72-4.05, P < 0.0001). Newborns with congenital defects were born with a lower gestational age compared with full-term pregnancies.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the EFL protocol is considered a safe option for ensuring offspring safety, comparable with the LPS protocol; however, multiple pregnancies represent an independent risk factor for congenital abnormalities. This approach can be widely adopted; however, prioritizing single embryo transfers is strongly recommended to minimize the potential risks associated with multiple pregnancies in offspring.

Keywords: Assisted reproductive technology; Congenital anomaly; Early-follicular long-acting GnRH-a long protocol; Luteal phase short-acting GnRH-a long protocol; Neonatal outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Random effects logistic regression of congenital malformation in neonate Note: Results in table: OR (95%CI) Pvalue. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio; BMI = body mass index; HDIP = Hypertensive Disorders in Pregnancy; GDM = gestational diabetes mellitus Outcomes: Congenital malformation Adjust I adjust for: Maternal age

Similar articles

References

    1. European IVFMCftESoHR, Embryology, Smeenk J, Wyns C, De Geyter C, Kupka M et al. ART in Europe, 2019: results generated from European registries by ESHREdagger. Hum Reprod. 2023:dead197. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lv H, Diao F, Du J, Chen T, Meng Q, Ling X, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects in a Chinese birth cohort study. Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2021;7:100090. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reefhuis J, Honein MA, Schieve LA, Correa A, Hobbs CA, Rasmussen SA, et al. Assisted reproductive technology and major structural birth defects in the United States. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(2):360–6. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den387. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Pinborg A, Henningsen AK, Malchau SS, Loft A. Congenital anomalies after assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):327–32. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.12.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hansen M, Kurinczuk JJ, Milne E, de Klerk N, Bower C. Assisted reproductive technology and birth defects: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2013;19(4):330–53. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmt006. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources