Endometrial Receptivity Analysis – a tool to increase an implantation rate in assisted reproduction
Authors:
L. Hromadová; I. Tokareva; K. Veselá; P. Trávník
; J. Veselý
Authors‘ workplace:
REPROMEDA Biology Park, Brno, vedoucí lékař MUDr. J. Veselý, CSc.
Published in:
Ceska Gynekol 2019; 84(3): 177-183
Category:
Overview
Introduction: A successful embryo implantation is crucial for a positive outcome of in vitro fertilization. But there is only a short period during which the endometrium is receptive for embryo, this so called implantation window can be detected by a molecular diagnostic method endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA).
Objective: To find out the percentage of patients with a non-receptive endometrium in the time of ERA and to learn what part of them got pregnant after the identification of their personalized implantation window.
Design: A retrospective study.
Setting: REPROMEDA Biology Park, Centre of Reproductive Medicine and Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis, Brno.
Methods: A cohort of 85 patients undergoing ERA from August 2015 to October 2018 was studied. 74 patients experienced a previous implantation failure, the average number of preceding unsuccessful frozen embryo transfers was 2,5 in this group, 11 women went through ERA due to the preventive reason before the first FET. In all women one euploid embryo was transferred. 48 patients were prepared either for ERA or FET in a natural menstrual cycle, 37 women in HRT cycle. We were interested in a percentage of non-receptive patients in the time of ERA and wanted to discover what part of non-receptive women got pregnant after the identification of their personal implantation window. The average number of frozen embryo transfers needed to achieve the pregnancy was also calculated.
Results: 31 of 85 patients (36.5%) were found to have a non-receptive endometrium. In the natural cycle 13 of 48 (27.1%) were non-receptive: five were pre-receptive, three early receptive, two late receptive and three post-receptive. In the HRT cycle 18 of 37 patients (48.6%) were non-receptive: 12 were pre-receptive, four early receptive, one late receptive, one post-receptive. Personalized FET was done in 26 of total 31 initially non-receptive patients, 18 of them got pregnant (69.2%). In the natural cycle 6 of 11 (54.5%) achieved the pregnancy, in the HRT cycle 12 of 15 women (80.0%) got pregnant. To achieve the clinical pregnancy 1.5 frozen embryo transfer in average was needed.
Conclusion: A displaced implantation window was found in more than 1/3 of patients undergoing an assisted reproductive treatment. After the personalized FET the clinical pregnancy was noticed in 69.2% of them. This result supports an individual approach to patients in IVF programme besides other at the timing of embryo transfer after the identification of pWOI.
Keywords:
pregnancy – IVF – ERA – natural cycle – HRT cycle – non-receptive endometrium – personalized FET – implantation window
Sources
1. Bertolín, AR. ERA Operations manual. https://www.igenomix.com/hubfs/Spain/ERA/PDF/AF%20Manual%20ERA%20ENG%202018.pdf.
2. Blesa, D., Ruiz-Alonso, M., Simon, C. The endometrialreceptivity array test (ERA) for personalization of embryo transfer (pET), mt Médecine de la Reproduction. Gynécologie Endocrinologie 2013, 15(3), p. 249–254.
3. Díaz-Gimeno, P., Horcajadas, JA., Martinez-Conejero, JA., et al. A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril, 2011, 95, 1, p. 50–60.e15.
4. Díaz-Gimeno, P., Ruiz-Alonso, M., Blesa, D., et al. The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril, 2013, 99, 2, p. 508–517.
5. Diedrich, K., Fauser, BCJM., Devroy, P., Griesinger, G. The role of the endometrium and embryo in human implantation, Human Reprod Update. 2007, 13, 4, p. 365–377.
6. Donaghay, M., Lessey, BA. Uterine receptivity: alterations associated with benign gynecological disease. Semin Reprod Med, 2007, 25(6), p. 461–475.
7. Dvořan, M., Vodička, J., Dostál, J., et al. Implantace a diagnostika receptivity endometria. Čes Gynek, 2018, 83, 4, s. 291–299.
8. Garrido-Gómez, T., Ruiz-Alonso, M., Blesa, D., et al. Profiling the gene signature of endometrial receptivity: clinical results. Fertil Steril, 2013, 99, 4, p. 1078–1085.
9. Guven, S., Kart, C., Unsal, MA., et al. Endometrial injury may increase the clinical pregnancy rate in normoresponders undergoing long agonist protocol ICSI cycles with single embryo transfer. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2014, 173, p. 58–62.
10. Igenomix.https://www.igenomix.com/hubfs/Spain/ERA/PDF/01_af%20Present%20ERA%20eng_online_2018_alta.pdf
11. Karimzade, MA., Oskouian, H., Ahmadi, S., et al. Local injury to the endometrium on the day of oocyte retrieval has a negative impact on implantation in assisted reproductive cycles: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet, 2010, 281, p. 499–503.
12. Katzorke, N., Villela, F., Ruiz, M., Simón, C. Diagnosis of endometrial-factor infertility: 12. current approaches and new avenues for research. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkunde, 2016, 76, 6, S. 699–703.
13. Lessey, BA. Assessment of endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril, 2010, 96, 3, p. 522–529.
14. Mahajan, N. Endometrial receptivity array: Clinical application. J Hum Reprod Sci., 2015, 8(3), p. 121–129.
15. Moreno, I., Cicinelli, E., Garcia-Grau, I., et al. The diagnosis of chronic endometritis in infertile asymptomatic women: a comparative study of histology, microbial cultures, hysteroscopy, and molecular microbiology. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2018, 218, 6, p. 602.e1–602.e16.
16. Moreno, I., Codoñer, FM., Vilella, F., et al. Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 215, 6, p. 684–703.
17. Munné, S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy and translocations using array comparative genomic hybridization. Curr Genomics, 2012, 13(6), p. 463–470.
18. Narvekar, S., Gupta, N., Shetty, N., et al. Does local endometrial injury in the nontransfer cycle improve the IVF-ET outcome in the subsequent cycle in patients with previous unsuccessful IVF. A randomized controlled pilot study. J Hum Reprod Sci, 2010, 3, p. 15–19.
19. Nawroth, F., Ludwig, M. What is the ‚ideal‘ duration of progesterone supplementation before the transfer of cryopreserved-thawed embryos in estrogen/progesterone replacement protocols? Hum Reprod, 2005, 20(5), p. 1127–1134.
20. Noyes, RW., Hertig, AT., Rock, J. Dating the endometrial biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 1975, 122(2), p. 262–263.
21. Panagiotopoulou, N., Karavolos, S., Choudhary, M. Endometrial injury prior to assisted reproductive techniques for recurrent implantation failure: a systematic literature review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2015, 193, p. 27–33.
22. Revel, A. Defective endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril, 2011, 97, 5, p. 1028–1032.
23. Rubio, C., Bellver, J., Rodrigo, L. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril, 2017, 107, 5, p. 1122–1129.
24. Ruiz-Alonso, M., Blesa, D., Diaz-Gimeno, P. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril, 2000, 100, 3, p. 818–824.
25. Ruiz-Alonso, M., Galindo, N., Pellicer, A., Simón, C. What a difference two days make: „personalized“ embryo transfer (pET) paradigm: A case report and pilot study. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29, 6, p. 1244–1247.
26. Ruiz-Alonso, M., Gómez, E., Díaz-Gimeno, P, et al. Clinical application of the endometrial receptivity array. mt Médecine de la Reproduction. Gynécologie Endocrinologie, 2014, 16(2), p. 120–126.
27. Sharma, A., Kumar, P. Understanding implantation window, a crucial phenomenon. J Hum Reprod Sci, 2012, 5(1), p. 2–6.
28. Simon, A. Assessment and treatment of repeated implantation failure (RIF). J Assist Reprod Genet, 2012, 29(11), p. 1227–1239.
29. Singh, N., Toshyan, V., Kumar, S., et al. Does endometrial injury enhances implantation in recurrent in-vitro fertilization failures? A prospective randomized control study from tertiary care center. J Hum Reprod Sci, 2015, 8, p. 218–223.
30. Tan, J., Kan, A., Hitkari, J., et al. The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet, 2018, 35(4), p. 683–692.
31. Trávník, P. Klinická embryologie, Praha: Mladá fronta, 2018, s. 196–199.
32. Yeung, TW, Chai, J., Li, RH., et al. The effect of endometrial injury on ongoing pregnancy rate in unselected subfertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization: A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod, 2014, 29, p. 2474–2481.
Labels
Paediatric gynaecology Gynaecology and obstetrics Reproduction medicineArticle was published in
Czech Gynaecology
2019 Issue 3
Most read in this issue
- Uterine adenomyosis: pathogenesis, diagnostics, symptomatology and treatment
- Echogenic foci in fetal heart from a pediatric cardiologist‘s point of view
- Vaginismus – who takes interest in it?
- Endometrial Receptivity Analysis – a tool to increase an implantation rate in assisted reproduction