Evidence mapPaperPMID 37608795Full record

ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2023

The value of LH maximum level in predicting optimal oocyte yield following GnRH agonist trigger.

William Hao-Yu Lee, Kuan-Ting Lin, Yun-Chiao Hsieh, Tzu-Ching Kao, Ting-Chi Huang, Kuang-Han Chao, Mei-Jou Chen, Jehn-Hsiahn Yang, Shee-Uan Chen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

William Hao-Yu LeeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Kuan-Ting LinDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yun-Chiao HsiehDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tzu-Ching KaoInfertility Center, Chien-Shin Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ting-Chi HuangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Kuang-Han ChaoDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Mei-Jou ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Jehn-Hsiahn YangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Shee-Uan ChenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
National Taiwan University Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Risk factors associated with a suboptimal response to Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists include a high or low body mass index (BMI), prolonged use of oral contraceptive pills, and low luteinizing hormone (LH) levels on either the start or trigger days of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). However, this approach may increase the need for a dual trigger and may also result in a higher incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in hyper-responders. We aimed to investigate whether the maximum LH level during stimulation can serve as a predictive factor for achieving an optimal oocyte yield using the GnRH agonist trigger alone. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all antagonist protocols or progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols triggered with GnRH agonist only between May 2012 and December 2022. Subjects were divided into three groups, depending on basal LH level and LH maximum level. The freeze-all strategy was implemented in all cycles: Group 1, consistently low LH levels throughout COS; Group 2, low basal LH level with high LH max level during COS; Group 3, consistently high LH levels throughout COS. The primary outcome was the oocyte yield rate. The secondary outcome includes the number of collected oocytes, suboptimal response to GnRH agonist trigger, oocyte maturity rate, fertilized rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. The pregnancy outcomes were calculated for the first FET cycle. Results: Following confounder adjustment, multivariable regression analysis showed that Group 1 (cycles with consistently low LH levels throughout COS) remains an independent predictor of suboptimal response (OR: 6.99; 95% CI 1.035-47.274). Group 1 (b = -12.72; 95% CI -20.9 to -4.55) and BMI (b = -0.25; 95% CI -0.5 to -0.004) were negatively associated with oocyte yield rate. Patients with low basal LH but high LH max levels had similar clinical outcomes compared to those with high LH max levels through COS. Conclusions: The maximum LH level during COS may serve as an indicator of LH reserve and could be a more reliable predictor of achieving an optimal oocyte yield when compared to relying solely on the basal LH level. In the case of hyper-responders where trigger agents (agonist-only or dual trigger) are being considered, we propose a novel strategy that incorporates the maximum LH level, rather than just the basal or trigger-day LH level, as a reference for assessing LH reserve. This approach aims to minimize the risk of obtaining suboptimal oocyte yield and improve overall treatment outcomes.

Indexed as

Gonadotropin-Releasing HormoneOocytesBirth RateFemaleHumansPregnancyRetrospective StudiesGonadotropin-Releasing Hormonedual triggerGnRH-agonist triggerLH maxOHSSsuboptimal trigger

Identifiers

PMID37608795
PMCPMC10441777
OpenAlexW4385622559

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.