Efficacy of the endometrial receptivity array for repeated implantation failure in Japan: A retrospective, two-centers study

Tomoko Hashimoto, Masae Koizumi, Masakazu Doshida, Mayumi Toya, Eri Sagara, Nao Oka, Yukiko Nakajo, Nobuya Aono, Hideki Igarashi, Koichi Kyono, Tomoko Hashimoto, Masae Koizumi, Masakazu Doshida, Mayumi Toya, Eri Sagara, Nao Oka, Yukiko Nakajo, Nobuya Aono, Hideki Igarashi, Koichi Kyono

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) as a diagnostic tool and the impact of personalized embryo transfer (pET) for the treatment of patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in Japan.

Methods: Fifty patients with a history of RIF with frozen-thawed blastocyst transfers were recruited from July, 2015 to April, 2016. Endometrial sampling for the ERA and histological dating and a pET according to the ERA were performed. The receptive (R) or non-receptive (NR) status of the endometrium as a result of the first ERA, endometrial dating, and pregnancy rates after the pET were analyzed.

Results: Of the patients with RIF, 12 (24%) were NR. Among them, eight (66.7%) were prereceptive. A clinical follow-up was possible in 44 patients who underwent the pET. The pregnancy rates were 58.8% per patient and 35.3% per first pET in the R patients and 50.0% per patient and 50.0% per first pET in the NR patients. Discrepancies between the ERA results and histological dating were seen more in the NR patients than in the R patients.

Conclusions: For patients with unexplained RIF, there is a significance in searching for their personal window of implantation (WOI) using the ERA, considering the percentage of those who were NR and the pregnancy rates that resulted from the pET. By transferring euploid embryos in a personal WOI, much better pregnancy rates are expected.

Keywords: endometrial receptivity array; histological dating; implantation window; personalized embryo transfer; recurrent implantation failure.

References

    1. Simon A, Laufer N. Repeated implantation failure: clinical approach. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1039‐1043.
    1. Ruiz‐Alonso M, Blesa D, Díaz‐Gimeno P, et al. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:818‐824.
    1. Kung A, Munne S, Bankowski B, Coates A, Wells D. Validation of next‐generation sequencing for comprehensive chromosome screening of embryos. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:760‐769.
    1. Harton GL, Munne S, Surrey M, et al. Diminished effect of maternal age on implantation after preimplantation genetic diagnosis with array comparative genomic hybridization. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1695‐1703.
    1. Fox C, Morin S, Jeong JW, Scott RT Jr, Lessey BA. Local and systemic factors and implantation: what is the evidence? Fertil Steril. 2016;105:873‐884.
    1. Lessey BA. Assessment of endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:522‐529.
    1. Díaz‐Gimeno P, Horcajadas JA, Martínez‐Conejero JA, et al. A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:50‐60.
    1. Díaz‐Gimeno P, Ruiz‐Alonso M, Blesa D, et al. The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histological dating as diagnostic method for the endometrial factor. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:508‐517.
    1. Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology . (in Japanese). Accessed February 22, 2017.
    1. Barash A, Dekel N, Fieldust S, Segal I, Schechtman E, Granot I. Local injury to the endometrium doubles the incidence of successful pregnancies in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:1317‐1322.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj