摘要
目的比较分析促性腺激素释放激素抑制剂(简称GnRH-A)与促性腺激素释放激素激动剂(GnRH-a)长方案对治疗卵巢功能减退、促进排卵效果以及临床妊娠的影响,以便选择最佳的促排卵方法,并为之提供有效的参考依据。方法选择该院2015年10月—2016年10月符合疾病标准的80例患者,并随机分为观察组与对照组,每组各40例患者,其中观察组使用促性腺激素释放激素抑制剂,对照组使用促性腺激素释放激素激动剂,并比较分析两组的实际治疗效果。结果比较分析两组患者hCG日血清雌二醇的含量水平,其中观察组E2为(1 704.30±116.88)pg/mL、P为(1.22±0.28)pg/mL;对照组E2为(1 734.68±109.43)pg/mL、P为(1.27±0.31)pg/mL,且组间差异无统计学意义(P<0.05)。而对照组患者用药量为(2 320.96±167.38)IU,用药天数为(12.20±1.42)d;观察组用药量为(1 970.22±156.09)IU,用药天数为(9.14±1.27)d,两指标对照组均高于观察组且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论促性腺激素释放激素抑制剂方案可以提升卵巢功能减退患者的临床妊娠率,是一种效果较佳的促排卵方法。
Objective To compare and analyze the effect of GnRH-A and GnRH-a in treatment of hypo-ovarianism and effect on the clinical pregnancy in order to select the best ovulation induction method and provide the effective reference for it. Methods 80 cases of patients meeting the disease standards in our hospital from October 2015 to October 2016 were selected and randomly divided into two groups with 40 cases in each, the observation group adopted the go- nadotropic hormone to release the depressor, while the control group adopted the gonadotropic hormone to release the excitomotory, and the practical treatment effect of the two groups was compared and analyzed. Results The differences in the E2 and P between the observation group and the control group had no statistical significance（P〈0.05）[（1 704.30± 116.88）pg/mL,（1.22±0.28）pg/mL vs （1 734.68±109.43）pg/mL, （1,27±0.31）pg/mL], and the dosage and medication day in the control group were higher than those in the observation group （P〈0.05）[（2 320.96±167.38）IU, （12.20±1.42）d vs （1 970.22±156.09）IU,（9.14±1.27）d], and the differences had statistical significance. Conclusion The GnRH-A plan can improve the clinical pregnancy rate of patients with hypo-ovarianism, which is a ovulation induction method with better effect.
出处
《系统医学》
2017年第5期123-126,共4页
Systems Medicine
关键词
促排卵方案
卵巢功能减退
有效性观察
Ovulation induction method
Hypo-ovarianism
Observation on effectiveness
