OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship of body mass index (BMI) to uterine receptivity under conditions of programmed hormonal support and standardized embryo quality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.A tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Ninety-seven consecutive first-cycle recipients of anonymous oocyte donation. After programmed hormone replacement, recipients had transfer of embryos derived from oocyte donation. Anonymous oocyte donors received ovarian stimulation and underwent transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval. SETTING: A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of implantation versus BMI. Area under the ROC curve was 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.62, suggesting no relationship between BMI and implantation. There was no difference in implantation rates between obese (BMI >or=30) and nonobese (BMI <30) recipients, odds ratio 1.1, 95% CI 0.5-2.4. CONCLUSION(S): Uterine receptivity was unimpaired in women with increased BMI when hormonal support and embryo quality were standardized.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship of body mass index (BMI) to uterine receptivity under conditions of programmed hormonal support and standardized embryo quality. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.A tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Ninety-seven consecutive first-cycle recipients of anonymous oocyte donation. After programmed hormone replacement, recipients had transfer of embryos derived from oocyte donation. Anonymous oocyte donors received ovarian stimulation and underwent transvaginal ultrasound-guided oocyte retrieval. SETTING: A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve of implantation versus BMI. Area under the ROC curve was 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.62, suggesting no relationship between BMI and implantation. There was no difference in implantation rates between obese (BMI >or=30) and nonobese (BMI <30) recipients, odds ratio 1.1, 95% CI 0.5-2.4. CONCLUSION(S): Uterine receptivity was unimpaired in women with increased BMI when hormonal support and embryo quality were standardized.
Authors: Seung Yup Ku; Sang Don Kim; Byung Chul Jee; Chang Suk Suh; Young Min Choi; Jung Gu Kim; Shin Yong Moon; Seok Hyun Kim Journal: J Korean Med Sci Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 2.153
Authors: Emily S Jungheim; Jennifer L Travieso; Kenneth R Carson; Kelle H Moley Journal: Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.844