微刺激与常规促排卵方案在体外受精-胚胎移植中的效果

目的：探讨微刺激促排卵方案在卵巢功能正常患者行体外受精-胚胎移植（in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer，IVF-ET）助孕治疗中的应用价值。方法：选择2009年1月至2012年7月在中国医科大学附属盛京医院生殖中心首次行IVF-ET助孕治疗，年龄26至38岁且卵巢功能正常的患者，比较首次行IVF-ET助孕治疗应用微刺激方案（研究组104例）和应用标准长、短方案（对照组198例）促排卵的治疗效果及临床结局。结果：研究组104个微刺激周期中，共97个周期进行胚胎移植，平均获卵数（3.1±1.6）枚，临床妊娠33例，新鲜周期临床妊娠率为34.0%（33/97）；对照组中198个行长、短方案促排卵周期中，共187个周期行胚胎移植，平均获卵数（10.2±5.7）枚，临床妊娠93例，新鲜周期临床妊娠率49.7%（93/187）， 两组差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。研究组促性腺激素使用天数为（4.7±2.1） d，使用总数为（5.7±3.7）支（每支剂量为75 U）；对照组使用天数为（9.16±1.87） d，使用总数为（30.9±10.3）支，两组使用时间和数量差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论：对于卵巢功能正常的患者应用微刺激方案行IVF-ET助孕治疗可以取得一定的临床效果，但明显低于标准长、短促排卵方案助孕治疗结果。

Comparison of clinical outcome of mild-stimulation and conventional ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET)

To investigate the practical application value of the mild-stimulation method used in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment for IVF patients with normal ovarian function. Methods：The patients (ages from 26 to 38 years) with normal ovarian function, who were treated with IVF-ET in Affiliated Reproductive Center of China Medical University from January 2004 to July 2012 were selected as our samples. We compared the clinical results of treatment between the mild-stimulation (104 cycles in experimental group) and the conventional stimulation (198 cycles in control group).Results: The number of retrieved oocytes (3.1±1.6 vs. 10.2±5.7, P<0.05) and clinical pregnancy rate ［34% (33/97) vs. 49.7% (93/187), P<0.05］ of the mild-stimulation group (104 cycles) were lower than those of the control group (198 cycles), however, the duration of stimulation (4.7±2.1 vs. 9.16±1.87) and total doses of 75 U gonadotropins used (5.7±3.7 vs. 30.9±10.3) were also lower in the mild-stimulation group than in the control group obviously (P<0.05).Conclusion: For the normal ovarian function patients, the mild-stimulation method has clear clinical effects, but not as good as the conventional-stimulation one.