Evaluation of Pregnancy Outcomes of Vitrified-Warmed Blastocyst Transfer before and after Endometrial Receptivity Analysis in Identical Patients with Recurrent Implantation Failure
Yuta Kasahara, T. Hashimoto, Ryo Yokomizo, Yuya Takeshige, K. Yoshinaga, M. Toya, H. Igarashi, H. Kishi, K. Kyono
{"title":"Evaluation of Pregnancy Outcomes of Vitrified-Warmed Blastocyst Transfer before and after Endometrial Receptivity Analysis in Identical Patients with Recurrent Implantation Failure","authors":"Yuta Kasahara, T. Hashimoto, Ryo Yokomizo, Yuya Takeshige, K. Yoshinaga, M. Toya, H. Igarashi, H. Kishi, K. Kyono","doi":"10.1142/s2661318221500043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The clinical value of personalized embryo transfer (pET) guided by the endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) tests for recurrent implantation failure (RIF) cases is still unclear. The aim of this study is to clarify the efficacy of ERA leading to personalization of the day of embryo transfer (ET) in RIF patients. Methods: A retrospective study was performed for 94 patients with RIF who underwent ERA between July 2015 and December 2019. Pregnancy outcomes in a previous vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (previous VBT) and a personalized vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (pVBT) in identical patients were compared. The details of each pVBT were further analyzed between patients in a non-displaced group, which indicated “receptive” cases in ERA results and those who were in the displaced group, which indicated “non-receptive” cases. Results: When the pregnancy rate, both per patient and per transfer cycle, of previous VBT and pVBT were compared, a significant increase in pVBT was observed between the two methods (5.3% vs. 62.8%, 4.4% vs. 47.9%, respectively). The pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and clinical pregnancy rates of the first pVBT were significantly higher in the displaced group than the non-displaced group. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate of the displaced group tended to be higher compared to that of the non-displaced group in the first pVBT, although the difference was not statistically significant (51.0% vs. 31.1%, [Formula: see text] = 0.06). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that pVBT guided by ERA tests may improve pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients whose window of implantation (WOI) is displaced, and its effect may be more pronounced at the first pVBT. The displacement of WOI may be considered to be one of the causes of RIF, and its adjustment may contribute to the improvement of pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients.","PeriodicalId":34382,"journal":{"name":"Fertility Reproduction","volume":"76 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fertility Reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/s2661318221500043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Background: The clinical value of personalized embryo transfer (pET) guided by the endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) tests for recurrent implantation failure (RIF) cases is still unclear. The aim of this study is to clarify the efficacy of ERA leading to personalization of the day of embryo transfer (ET) in RIF patients. Methods: A retrospective study was performed for 94 patients with RIF who underwent ERA between July 2015 and December 2019. Pregnancy outcomes in a previous vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (previous VBT) and a personalized vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (pVBT) in identical patients were compared. The details of each pVBT were further analyzed between patients in a non-displaced group, which indicated “receptive” cases in ERA results and those who were in the displaced group, which indicated “non-receptive” cases. Results: When the pregnancy rate, both per patient and per transfer cycle, of previous VBT and pVBT were compared, a significant increase in pVBT was observed between the two methods (5.3% vs. 62.8%, 4.4% vs. 47.9%, respectively). The pregnancy rates, implantation rates, and clinical pregnancy rates of the first pVBT were significantly higher in the displaced group than the non-displaced group. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate of the displaced group tended to be higher compared to that of the non-displaced group in the first pVBT, although the difference was not statistically significant (51.0% vs. 31.1%, [Formula: see text] = 0.06). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that pVBT guided by ERA tests may improve pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients whose window of implantation (WOI) is displaced, and its effect may be more pronounced at the first pVBT. The displacement of WOI may be considered to be one of the causes of RIF, and its adjustment may contribute to the improvement of pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients.
背景:子宫内膜容受性分析(ERA)试验指导下的个体化胚胎移植(pET)治疗复发性着床失败(RIF)的临床价值尚不明确。本研究的目的是阐明ERA对RIF患者胚胎移植(ET)日期个性化的功效。方法:对2015年7月至2019年12月期间接受ERA治疗的94例RIF患者进行回顾性研究。比较了相同患者以前玻璃化加热囊胚移植(以前的VBT)和个性化玻璃化加热囊胚移植(pVBT)的妊娠结局。进一步分析非移位组患者(ERA结果为“可接受”病例)和移位组患者(ERA结果为“不可接受”病例)之间每个pVBT的细节。结果:比较既往VBT和pVBT的每名患者和每个转移周期的妊娠率,两种方法的pVBT显著增加(分别为5.3%比62.8%,4.4%比47.9%)。移位组第一pVBT的妊娠率、着床率、临床妊娠率均显著高于未移位组。在第一次pVBT中,移位组的累积持续妊娠率有高于非移位组的趋势,但差异无统计学意义(51.0% vs. 31.1%,[公式:见文]= 0.06)。结论:我们的研究表明,ERA试验指导下的pVBT可以改善着床窗(WOI)移位的RIF患者的妊娠结局,并且在第一次pVBT时效果更明显。WOI的移位可能是RIF发生的原因之一,其调整可能有助于改善RIF患者的妊娠结局。