反复植入失败患者玻璃化加热囊胚移植前后妊娠结局分析

Yuta Kasahara, T. Hashimoto, Ryo Yokomizo, Yuya Takeshige, K. Yoshinaga, M. Toya, H. Igarashi, H. Kishi, K. Kyono
{"title":"反复植入失败患者玻璃化加热囊胚移植前后妊娠结局分析","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluation of Pregnancy Outcomes of Vitrified-Warmed Blastocyst Transfer before and after Endometrial Receptivity Analysis in Identical Patients with Recurrent Implantation Failure
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Failures: Is It the Seed or the Soil? ASPIRE Guidelines for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) Laboratory Practice in Low and Medium Resource Settings How Should We Assess the Endometrium of Infertile Patients? What Does the Future Look Like? Uterine Natural Killer Cells and Implantation Wisdom of Freezing All Valuable Embryos
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1