Euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol
Abstract Background Previous studies has yielded contradictory findings regarding the relationship between controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocol and euploid blastocyst rate. This study aimed to investigate whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) influences the euploidy rate...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2025-05-01
|
| Series: | Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-025-01398-9 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850154711237263360 |
|---|---|
| author | Hu Tan Li Huang Wenjuan Liu Jin Yan Li Li Yujiang Wang Yuqiang Huang Zonghui Xiao Fenghua Liu Xiqian Zhang |
| author_facet | Hu Tan Li Huang Wenjuan Liu Jin Yan Li Li Yujiang Wang Yuqiang Huang Zonghui Xiao Fenghua Liu Xiqian Zhang |
| author_sort | Hu Tan |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Previous studies has yielded contradictory findings regarding the relationship between controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocol and euploid blastocyst rate. This study aimed to investigate whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) influences the euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles compared to GnRH antagonist protocol. Methods The retrospective study analyzed data from 598 PGT-A cycles conducted between January 2017 and October 2022 utilizing either PPOS (medroxyprogesterone acetate) or the GnRH antagonist protocol. The biopsied trophectoderm from 2218 blastocysts was collected for euploidy analysis via next-generation sequencing. Results Biopsied blastocyst number was comparable between PPOS group and GnRH antagonist group (3.51 ± 2.93 vs. 3.91 ± 3.19, P = 0.116), although PPOS yielded fewer MII oocytes (10.27 ± 6.59 vs. 11.60 ± 6.71, P = 0.015). The euploidy rate (43.3% vs. 45.0%, P = 0.423), aneuploidy rate (36.9% vs. 36.0%, P = 0.127), and mosaic rate (19.4% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.127) were similar between the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols. Additionally, PPOS demonstrated comparable pregnancy outcomes to GnRH antagonist protocol, including clinical pregnancy rates (58.1% vs. 59.8%, P = 0.713) and live birth rates (51.1% vs. 46.9%, P = 0.364). But lower miscarriage rate was shown in the PPOS protocol (7.9% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.019). Conclusions The PPOS protocol did not negatively impact euploid blastocyst formation or pregnancy outcomes compared to the GnRH antagonist protocol, indicating that medroxyprogesterone acetate was an alternate option to antagonists for women undergoing PGT-A. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-a4cbf975f089499c975feffa6e84b411 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1477-7827 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-05-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology |
| spelling | doaj-art-a4cbf975f089499c975feffa6e84b4112025-08-20T02:25:13ZengBMCReproductive Biology and Endocrinology1477-78272025-05-012311810.1186/s12958-025-01398-9Euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocolHu Tan0Li Huang1Wenjuan Liu2Jin Yan3Li Li4Yujiang Wang5Yuqiang Huang6Zonghui Xiao7Fenghua Liu8Xiqian Zhang9Reproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalReproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalReproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalReproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalReproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalReproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalReproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalReproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalReproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalReproductive Medical Center, Guangdong Women and Children HospitalAbstract Background Previous studies has yielded contradictory findings regarding the relationship between controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocol and euploid blastocyst rate. This study aimed to investigate whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) influences the euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles compared to GnRH antagonist protocol. Methods The retrospective study analyzed data from 598 PGT-A cycles conducted between January 2017 and October 2022 utilizing either PPOS (medroxyprogesterone acetate) or the GnRH antagonist protocol. The biopsied trophectoderm from 2218 blastocysts was collected for euploidy analysis via next-generation sequencing. Results Biopsied blastocyst number was comparable between PPOS group and GnRH antagonist group (3.51 ± 2.93 vs. 3.91 ± 3.19, P = 0.116), although PPOS yielded fewer MII oocytes (10.27 ± 6.59 vs. 11.60 ± 6.71, P = 0.015). The euploidy rate (43.3% vs. 45.0%, P = 0.423), aneuploidy rate (36.9% vs. 36.0%, P = 0.127), and mosaic rate (19.4% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.127) were similar between the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols. Additionally, PPOS demonstrated comparable pregnancy outcomes to GnRH antagonist protocol, including clinical pregnancy rates (58.1% vs. 59.8%, P = 0.713) and live birth rates (51.1% vs. 46.9%, P = 0.364). But lower miscarriage rate was shown in the PPOS protocol (7.9% vs. 16.8%, P = 0.019). Conclusions The PPOS protocol did not negatively impact euploid blastocyst formation or pregnancy outcomes compared to the GnRH antagonist protocol, indicating that medroxyprogesterone acetate was an alternate option to antagonists for women undergoing PGT-A.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-025-01398-9Progestin primed ovarian stimulationGnRH antagonistPreimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidyEuploidy ratePregnancy outcome |
| spellingShingle | Hu Tan Li Huang Wenjuan Liu Jin Yan Li Li Yujiang Wang Yuqiang Huang Zonghui Xiao Fenghua Liu Xiqian Zhang Euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology Progestin primed ovarian stimulation GnRH antagonist Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy Euploidy rate Pregnancy outcome |
| title | Euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol |
| title_full | Euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol |
| title_fullStr | Euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol |
| title_full_unstemmed | Euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol |
| title_short | Euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol |
| title_sort | euploidy rate and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles using progestin primed ovarian stimulation versus gnrh antagonist protocol |
| topic | Progestin primed ovarian stimulation GnRH antagonist Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy Euploidy rate Pregnancy outcome |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-025-01398-9 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hutan euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol AT lihuang euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol AT wenjuanliu euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol AT jinyan euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol AT lili euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol AT yujiangwang euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol AT yuqianghuang euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol AT zonghuixiao euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol AT fenghualiu euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol AT xiqianzhang euploidyrateandpregnancyoutcomesinpreimplantationgenetictestingforaneuploidycyclesusingprogestinprimedovarianstimulationversusgnrhantagonistprotocol |