Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor for intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients with repeated implantation failure: which route is best?dagger

dc.contributor.authorZeyneloglu, Hulusi Bulent
dc.contributor.authorTohma, Yusuf Aytac
dc.contributor.authorOnalan, Gogsen
dc.contributor.authorMoran, Utkun
dc.contributor.orcID0000-0002-0289-2642en_US
dc.contributor.orcID0000-0001-9418-4733en_US
dc.contributor.pubmedID31496328en_US
dc.contributor.researcherIDB-6487-2009en_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-12-15T08:22:40Z
dc.date.available2020-12-15T08:22:40Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to assess whether the dual administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) increases the effect of only systemic administration in patients with RIF. This retrospective study included 111 infertile normoresponder cases with two or more unsuccessful in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatments, despite the transfer of good quality embryos. Patients were divided into three groups according to using G-CSF and administration route; Group 1 included patients who received subcutaneous (SC) G-CSF only (n = 38), Group 2 comprised patients who received both intrauterine (IU) and SC G-CSF (n = 39), the control group included patients who did not receive G-CSF who were matched by age (n = 34). The IU route of G-CSF was employed on ovulation triggering day. G-CSF was administered via an IU insemination catheter. SC injection was started on the day of oocyte retrieval and administered for 15 days at 100,000 IU/kg. Foetal cardiac activity (clinical pregnancy) was present in 50 patients (46.2%) after embryo transfer, with 20 patients included in SC group (Group 1) (52.6%), 25 in SC + IU group (Group 2) (64.1%) and 8 (23.5%) in control group and significant difference was observed between groups (p: .001). Pregnancy resulted in live birth in 43 patients (39.8%), with 13 patients belonging in Group 1 (34.2%), 25 in Group 2 (61.5%) and 8 (23.5%) in control group; significant differences were observed between groups (p: .001). In conclusion, our results showed that dual administration of G-CSF was significantly more effective that the SC only method.Impact statement What is already known on this subject? A number of studies reported the possible benefits of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) administration in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and recurrent pregnancy loss patients; however, it is unclear which administration route is better. What do the results of this study add? Our results showed that G-CSF is a promising and safe agent for increasing live birth rates in patients with RIF. Additionally, dual administration is considered the better method than SC only administration.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage530en_US
dc.identifier.issn0144-3615en_US
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage526en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11727/5038
dc.identifier.volume40en_US
dc.identifier.wos000485968900001en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1080/01443615.2019.1631772en_US
dc.relation.journalJOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGYen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergien_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectIVFen_US
dc.subjectimplantationen_US
dc.subjectrecurrent implantation failureen_US
dc.subjectG-CSFen_US
dc.titleGranulocyte colony-stimulating factor for intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients with repeated implantation failure: which route is best?daggeren_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Files

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: