ResearchReproductive performance of commercial broodmares after induction of ovulation with HCG or Ovuplant™ (deslorelin)☆,☆☆
Introduction
Human chorionic gonadotropin has been used extensively for many years for inducing ovulation in mares because of its luteinizing hormone (LH)-like activity. Although administration of hCG to estrous mares with a follicle > 30 mm generally induces ovulation to occur within 36 to 48 hours, the interval from treatment to ovulation can be quite variable especially in older mares.1 This variability can be problematic when the timing of insemination and ovulation must be carefully coordinated, such as when using cooled or frozen-thawed semen. It has been hypothesized the variability in responsiveness to hCG is related to the development of antibodies against the hCG molecule that form following repeated administration of the hormone2; however, no correlation has been identified between the magnitude of the antibody response and the efficacy of hCG in mares.3 Therefore, the underlying cause(s) of the variable response following hCG treatment remains unknown.
Because the response to hCG treatment can be quite variable, there has been interest in using GnRH or its agonists to induce ovulation in mares. These agents are small, non-antigenic peptides that cause ovulation by stimulating secretion of endogenous LH. Although injectable preparations of GnRH can induce ovulation, multiple injections or continuous administration are necessary making them impractical for routine use (for review see4 ). The need for repeated or continuous administration of injectable preparations has been obviated by the development of a sustained-release subcutaneous implant containing 2.1 mg of the GnRH agonist deslorelin (Ovuplant™) that was recently approved for commercial use in the United States.
Although numerous studies have documented the efficacy of Ovuplant™ for inducing ovulation in mares (for review see5), after it was introduced into commercial use in the United States anecdotal field reports suggested that mares treated with Ovuplant™ that did not become pregnant were more likely to experience a delayed return to estrus and/or prolonged anovulatory period. Those observations were confirmed by a subsequent field study6 that documented the inter-ovulatory interval was significantly longer when mares received Ovuplant™ compared to estrous cycles when the same mares were not treated or received hCG. In addition, two recent controlled studies7, 8 have documented that Ovuplant™—treated mares had significantly longer inter-ovulatory intervals than non-treated control mares. Because Ovuplant™-treated mares apparently respond differently in the post-treatment period, the objective of this study was to further evaluate the clinical use of Ovuplant™ by comparing the reproductive performance of commercial broodmares treated with hCG or Ovuplant™.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
This retrospective study was completed by examining the 1999 reproductive records of client-owned mares examined by one veterinarian at Anoka Equine Veterinary Services, Ltd. in Elk River, Minnesota. Mares were two to 23 years old; primarily Arabian, Quarter Horse, Paint and Warm Blood breeds; and were treated with hCG or Ovuplant™ between January 15 and July 15, 1999. Their reproductive tracts were examined with transrectal palpation/ultrasonography every one to two days during estrus, and
Results
During the study period, hCG was administered to 106 mares during 134 estrous cycles and Ovuplant™ was administered to 117 mares during 151 estrous cycles. There were no differences (P > 0.10) in follicle size at the time of treatment, interval from treatment to ovulation, proportion of mares that failed to ovulate after treatment, or per-cycle pregnancy rate between hCG- and Ovuplant™-treated mares (Table 1). The interval from ovulation to return to estrus and the inter-ovulatory interval were
Discussion
The results of this study indicate that although the ovulatory response and fertility were not different for hCG— and Ovuplant™—treated mares, mares treated with Ovuplant™ that did not become pregnant had a significantly delayed return to estrus and prolonged inter-ovulatory interval. These results are very similar to those reported by Morehead and Blanchard6 who also studied commercial broodmares under field conditions. Although the inter-ovulatory interval was significantly longer in
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Elisa Kimble and Laura Parker for technical assistance compiling and analyzing the data.
References (10)
- et al.
Effects of repeated hCG injections on reproductive efficiency in mares
J Equine Vet Sci
(1990) - et al.
Control of ovulation in the mare with Ovuplant™. A short-term release implant (STI) containing the GNRH analogue deslorelin acetate: Studies from 1990 to 1994. (A review)
J Equine Vet Sci
(1994) - et al.
Clinical experience with deslorelin (Ovuplant™) in a Kentucky Thoroughbred broodmare practice (1999)
J Equine Vet Sci
(2000) - et al.
Kulinski KM, Guitreau AM: Prolonged interovulatory interval and hormonal changes in mares following the use of Ovuplant™ to hasten ovulation
J Equine Vet Sci
(2000) - et al.
Use of deslorelin short-term implants to induce ovulation in cycling mares during three consecutive estrous cycles
Anim Reprod Sci
(1995)