The role of luteal phase estrogen in pregnancy outcome has been a matter of considerable debate. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of estrogen supplementation in gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa)/human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG)-stimulated cycles associated with low luteal estrogen concentration, a study was performed comparing the ongoing pregnancy rates in cycles with serum concentrations of estradiol (E2) <100 pg/ml 11 days post embryo transfer (p-ET), treated with luteal phase progesterone (P4) vs. E2 and P4 supplementation. Among 1106 serum samples studied, 951 were from women receiving GnRHa and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) prior to oocyte retrieval and P4 (50 mg-100 mg IM daily) as luteal phase supplementation beginning day 11 after retrieval. The remaining 155 were from women receiving both E2 (2 mg-6 mg estrace orally each day) and P4 during the luteal phase. Significantly greater frequencies of preclinical losses were observed among women with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) concentrations>5 mIU/ml and concurrent E2 concentrations <100 pg/ml compared with E2 >100 pg/ml (p<0.00001). Among the 128 women who had hCG concentrations >5 mIU/ml and E2 concentrations <100 pg/ml, 102 received P4 only during the luteal phase and 26 were treated with estrace 2 mg-6 mg daily, as well as P4 during the luteal phase. The frequency of preclinical pregnancy losses among the 102 women with hCG >5 mIU/ml and E2 <100 pg/ml who did not receive luteal E2 supplementation was 72%, compared with 50% who received luteal E2 supplementation (p=0.04) The increase in preclinical pregnancy loss rates among women not receiving luteal E2 resulted in a decrease in ongoing pregnancy rate (8%), compared to those receiving luteal E2 supplementation (31%) (p=0.002). Our results indicated that a subset of women losing pregnancies preclinically after GnRHa and FSH stimulation due to low luteal phase serum E2 level may benefit from luteal estrogen supplementation. More sensitive and specific markers are needed to identify prospectively women in this risk group.
luteal estrogen supplementation low estradiol early pregnancy, estradiol progesterone luteal phase support IVF pregnancy outcome, low serum estradiol after embryo transfer preclinical pregnancy loss, GnRH agonist stimulation luteal estrogen deficiency supplementation, Coulam estradiol supplementation IVF luteal phase, preclinical pregnancy loss low estradiol concentration post transfer, estrace oral estradiol luteal phase supplementation IVF outcomes, estradiol less than 100 pg/ml after embryo transfer pregnancy loss, combined estrogen progesterone luteal support ongoing pregnancy rate, luteal phase estradiol concentration IVF pregnancy outcome predictor
Cite this article
Kaider, A. S., & Coulam, C. B. (2000). Luteal estrogen supplementation in pregnancies associated with low serum estradiol concentrations. Early pregnancy, 4(3), 191-199.
Kaider AS, Coulam CB. Luteal estrogen supplementation in pregnancies associated with low serum estradiol concentrations. Early Pregnancy (Cherry Hill). 2000;4(3):191-199.
Kaider, Azadeh S., and Carolyn B. Coulam. "Luteal estrogen supplementation in pregnancies associated with low serum estradiol concentrations." Early pregnancy, vol. 4, no. 3, 2000, pp. 191-199.
Gleicher N et al., 2001·Early Pregnancy (Cherry Hill)
Innumerable studies have attempted to demonstrate that hormonal support of the luteal phase during ovulation induction cycles improves pregnancy rates. None has, however, so far been able to confirm the validity of such treatment conclusively, possibly because most studies only utilized progesterone substitution. Since luteal phase endometrium also requires estradiol support, this study attempted to investigate whether hormone substitution with progesterone and estradiol would be more successful in improving pregnancy rates. Amongst approximately 7500 consecutive ovulation induction cycles were identified prospectively which were characterized by a precipitous drop of luteal phase serum estradiol levels by more than 50% over a 48 hour period within 10 days from hCG administration. Those cycles were prospectively randomized to oral micronized estradiol substitution (Group I) or not (Group II), while both groups received routine progesterone substitution of the luteal phase. Cycles were then evaluated in regards to the occurrence of chemical, ectopic and clinical pregnancies. One hundred sixty-three Group I cycles resulted in 34 pregnancies (20.9%), which compared favorably to 21 pregnancies in 167 Group II patients (12.6%) (x2[1] = 4.06; p < 0.04). The advantage for Group I cycles (29/95 pregnancies, 31%) vs. Group II cycles (16/105, 15%) became even more pronounced when only women up to age 35 years were evaluated. Estradiol substitution maintained a significant advantage until age 38 (x2 [1] = 6.87; p < 0.009). While gravidity did not affect pregnancy success, estradiol substitution in Group I benefited nulliparous (23% pregnancy rate) over multiparous women (12% pregnancy rate) (x2 [2] = 6.86; p< 0.03). This association was, however, age-dependent. A combined estradiol and progesterone substitution of the luteal phase of ovulation induction cycles increases the overall pregnancy rate. Since estradiol substitution was initiated in this study only once a precipitous drop in serum estradiol levels had already taken place, an even larger improvement in pregnancy rates could conceivably be possible if earlier estradiol substitution of the luteal phase is initiated. A further expansion of investigations of similar protocols for routine ovulation induction and in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles may be indicated, especially in women below age 38 years and in nulliparous females.
InfertilityEmbryo Transfer OptimizationUterine ContractilityLuteal Phase Support
To investigate whether uterine contractility at the time of embryo transfer (ET) can be reduced by early onset of luteal support with progesterone administered vaginally. Prospective analysis. Assisted reproduction unit. PATIENT(S): Eighty-four women undergoing 84 GnRH-a and FSH/hCG cycles for IVF-ET were studied. INTERVENTION(S): Vaginal progesterone was randomly started on the day of oocyte retrieval (group A, n = 43) or on the evening of ET (group B, n = 41). On the day of hCG administration and just before ET, 2-minute sagittal uterine scans were obtained by ultrasound and digitized with an image analysis system for assessing uterine contraction frequency. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Uterine contraction frequency. RESULT(S): Whereas uterine contraction frequency was similar in both groups on the day of hCG (4.6 +/- 0.3 and 4.5 +/- 0.3 contractions per minute, respectively), only women in group A showed decreased uterine contraction frequency on the day of ET (2.8 +/- 0.2 vs. 4.2 +/- 0.3 contractions per minute). CONCLUSION(S): Vaginal progesterone administration starting on the day of oocyte retrieval induced a decrease in uterine contraction frequency on the day of ET as compared with preovulatory values. Uterine relaxation before ET is likely to improve IVF-ET outcome by avoiding the displacement of embryos from the uterine cavity.
InfertilityLuteal Phase SupportRoute of AdministrationIVF Protocols
To evaluate the efficacy of oral micronized progesterone compared with IM progesterone in oil for luteal support in patients undergoing IVF who are treated with a GnRH agonist. Randomized prospective clinical trial. University-based IVF center. PATIENT(S): Women <40 years of age who were undergoing IVF with luteal GnRH pituitary down-regulation. INTERVENTION(S): Patients were randomized to receive either oral micronized progesterone (200 mg three times daily) or IM progesterone (50 mg daily). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Progesterone levels at standardized days 21 and 28, and pregnancy and embryo implantation rates. RESULT(S): Day 21 progesterone levels were 77.6+/-13.2 ng/mL in the IM group and 81.5+/-16.2 ng/mL in the oral group. Day 28 progesterone levels were 76.3+/-15.0 ng/mL in the IM group and 53.6+/-10.1 ng/mL in the oral group. The clinical pregnancy rates were 57.9% and 45.8% for the IM and oral groups, respectively. The implantation rate per embryo was significantly higher in the IM group (40.9%) than in the oral group (18.1%). CONCLUSION(S): When used according to our protocols, oral progesterone and IM progesterone result in comparable levels of circulating progesterone. However, oral progesterone results in a reduced implantation rate per embryo.
To determine whether the use of luteal phase support improves pregnancy rate (PR) in infertility. A meta-analysis of randomized trials of luteal phase support. Search of the National Library of Medicine MEDLINE data base from 1971 using the words luteal, pregnancy, human, and comparative. Bibliography of relevant articles, reviews, and abstracts of scientific meetings were hand searched. All randomized controlled trials of luteal phase support in infertility were included. Luteal phase support for recurrent abortion and nonrandomized trials were excluded. The common odds ratio was calculated for each intervention using the Mantel-Haentzel test. Homogeneity of treatment effect was evaluated using the Breslow-Day test. Pregnancy per cycle, rate of spontaneous abortion, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate. Eighteen trials met the above criteria. Human chorionic gonadotropin improved PRs in IVF when GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) was used (n = 151) and was superior to P (n = 352). Its benefit in all IVF cycles, however, was not established because of significant heterogeneity of treatment effect. Progesterone improved the PR in all IVF cycles (n = 457). No significant reduction in spontaneous abortion was noted with luteal support (n = 200). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurred in 5% of patients with hCG. Combination of data from trials of luteal support with other infertility therapies was not possible because of the differences in patient populations. The meta-analysis supports the routine use of hCG in IVF cycles using a GnRH-a. Progesterone was also beneficial for luteal phase support in IVF. For other infertility therapy, however, further research is needed to evaluate the role of luteal phase support.