ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Endocrinol.
Sec. Reproduction
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1526895
This article is part of the Research TopicAdvances in the Study of the Developmental Process and Gene State of Gametes and EmbryosView all 9 articles
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Flexible Antagonist Protocol and Long Luteal Phase Protocol in Patients with Normal Ovarian Reserve Function: A Prospective Cohort Study
Provisionally accepted- Yellow River Sanmenxia Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology, Sanmenxia, China
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Objective: Ovarian stimulation protocols play a pivotal role in the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments. This study compares the clinical outcomes of the long luteal phase GnRH agonist protocol and the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve. Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted at the Reproductive Medicine Center, Sanmenxia Hospital, Yellow River, from March 2021 to September 2023. Patients with normal ovarian reserve were enrolled and randomly assigned by a 1:3 ratio to either the long luteal phase protocol (Group A, n=42) or the flexible antagonist protocol (Group B, n=118). Data on patient characteristics, ovarian response, and embryological outcomes were collected and analyzed. Clinical outcomes, including clinical pregnancy, live birth rates, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) incidence, were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors associated with clinical pregnancy. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups (P>0.05). In terms of primary clinical outcomes, there were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy rate (54.8% vs. 56.8%, P=0.092), live birth rate (47.6% vs. 52.5%, P=0.278), or incidence of OHSS (0% vs. 2.5%, P=0.055) between Group A and Group B. Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified significant predictors of clinical pregnancy, including younger age (OR = 0.956, P = 0.042), higher AFC (OR = 1.127, P = 0.018), higher AMH levels (OR = 1.357, P = 0.005), greater endometrial thickness (OR = 1.162, P = 0.021), higher number of oocytes retrieved (OR = 1.234, P = 0.023), and better embryo quality (Grade I-II) (OR = 1.485, P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed between age-related subgroups (P>0.05), but success rates decreased with increasing age, highlighting age as a key factor influencing IVF/ICSI outcomes.The study found no significant differences in primary clinical outcomes between the two groups. However, younger age, higher AFC, higher AMH levels, greater endometrial thickness, higher number of oocytes retrieved, and better embryo quality were significant predictors of clinical pregnancy.
Keywords: ovarian stimulation protocols, Clinical pregnancy, GnRH agonist, GnRH antagonist, IVF/ICSI outcomes, Normal ovarian reserve
Received: 12 Nov 2024; Accepted: 02 Jun 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Ying, Hao, Feng, Li, Chen and Cao. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Tian Ying, Yellow River Sanmenxia Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology, Sanmenxia, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.