Effects of human chorionic gonadotropin intrauterine injection on oocyte retrieval day on assisted reproductive techniques outcomes: An RCT.

Robabe Hosseinisadat, Saeed L, Ashourzadeh S, Heidari SS, Habibzadeh V
International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2021 · doi:10.18502/ijrm.v19i9.9709 · PMID:34723056 · PMC8548753
OA: gold CC-BY-NC-4.0
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated deep summary by qwen3.7-flash, 2026-09-03 · read from full text ⓘ

This randomized clinical trial evaluated whether intrauterine injection of 1000 IU human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) on the day of oocyte retrieval improves assisted reproductive technology outcomes compared to a control group. The study enrolled infertile women under age 40 undergoing IVF or ICSI cycles, explicitly excluding those with endometriosis, uterine leiomyomas causing endometrial pressure, or recurrent implantation failure. Results indicated no statistically significant difference between the HCG and control groups in terms of implantation rates, chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, or abortion rates. Relevance to endometriosis: Endometriosis is listed as an exclusion criterion for this study, meaning patients with the condition were not included in the analysis of HCG effects on ART outcomes.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

BackgroundSeveral mediators play an important role in implantation. One of these mediators is human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG).ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of HCG intrauterine injection on the day of oocyte retrieval on the result of assisted reproductive techniques (ART).Materials and methodsIn this randomized clinical trial study, 126 women who were referred to Afzalipour Infertility Center between December 2018 to December 2019 undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles were enrolled and assigned to two groups of: a case (n = 62) and a control group (n = 64). The protocols for both groups were the same; except that the case group was injected with the protocols for both groups were the same, except that the case group was injected with 1000 IU of HCG into uterine cavity following the oocyte puncture, while no medication was administered to the control group. The implantation rate, chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and abortion rates were compared between the two groups.ResultsPositive chemical pregnancy was seen in 15 (27.3%) cases of the case group and 14 (25.5%) of the control group. No significant difference was seen in the chemical and clinical pregnancy rates between the groups. The abortion rate was higher in the control group but that was not significant.ConclusionA 1000 IU of HCG intrauterine injection after oocyte retrieval does not improve implantation, chemical or clinical pregnancy rates in ART cycles. Further studies are needed to clearly understand the role of HCG intrauterine injection in the day of oocyte retrieval in ART outcomes.
Full text 16,446 characters · extracted from pmc-nxml · 2 sections · click to expand

Section

We concluded that an intrauterine injection of 1000 IU of HCG after the oocyte retrieval does not improve implantation, chemical or clinical pregnancy rates in ART cycles. In this regard, more studies are needed to further examine clear the role of HCG intrauterine injection on oocyte retrieval day on ART outcomes. We suggest the researchers assess the effects of different dosages of HCG intrauterine injection, and the effects in women with different causes of infertility and in groups with a lower chance of ART success, such as women with RIF or endometriosis, etc. Also, the effects on ART outcomes of a larger sample size and injecting at the time of oocyte retrieval compared with on the ET day need to be studied. In addition, studies comparing the intrauterine HCG injections in fresh and frozen-thawed ET cycles should also be conducted.

Coi Statement

The authors have no financial or nonfinancial conflict of interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: pmc-nxml ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. The paper's references may be in our DB but unresolved to ``paper_id`` (resolution happens at ingest when the cited DOI matches a row we already have). Run the cross-source citation reconcile pass to retry.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-09-27T09:11:36.575535+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-21T05:10:58.409756+00:00
License: CC-BY-NC-4.0