Rawad Bassil1, Robert Casper1,2, Nivin Samara1, Tzu-Bou Hsieh1, Eran Barzilay3, Raoul Orvieto3,4, Jigal Haas5,6. 1. TRIO Fertility partners, 655 Bay St 11th floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2K4, Canada. 2. Division of Reproductive Sciences, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 3. Infertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv University, Israel. 4. Tarnesby-Tarnowski Chair for Family Planning and Fertility Regulation, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel. 5. TRIO Fertility partners, 655 Bay St 11th floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2K4, Canada. jigalh@hotmail.com. 6. Infertility and IVF Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Ramat Gan, Tel Aviv University, Israel. jigalh@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to determine the percentage of infertility patients who are diagnosed with a non-receptive endometrium according to the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) test and to examine whether adjusting the embryo transfer day according to the proposed shift in the window of implantation improves the pregnancy rate compared to non-ERA-tested patients. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study, including 53 consecutive good prognosis patients (0-2 previous frozen embryo transfers) admitted to our IVF unit for a mock cycle prior to their frozen day-5 embryo (blastocyst) transfer cycle. The mock cycle included an endometrial biopsy for both the ERA test and histological assessment by the Noyes criteria (study group). The next cycle frozen embryo transfer (FET) in the study group was adjusted according to the ERA results. The control group consisted of patients who underwent FET cycles at our clinic during the same period, without performing the endometrial biopsy and ERA testing. RESULTS: During the study period, 503 patients (control group) underwent FET cycles without performing the ERA testing and 41 patients had FET following an ERA test. There were no between-group differences in patients' age, number of previous transfers, endometrial thickness, number of transferred embryos, and ongoing pregnancy rates (35.2 vs. 39%, respectively, p = NS). Out of the 53 patients who performed the ERA test before their first or second FET, five endometrial samples (9.4%) were found to be post-receptive, 29 (54.7%) pre-receptive, and only 19 samples (35.8%) were receptive. Women in the study group with pre- or post-receptive endometrium on ERA testing, the appropriate adjustment in timing of FET according to the ERA test resulted in a 33.3% pregnancy rate, which is comparable to the 35.2% background ongoing pregnancy rate of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Performing the ERA test in a mock cycle prior to a FET does not seem to improve the ongoing pregnancy rate in good prognosis patients. Further large prospective studies are needed to elucidate the role of ERA testing in both good prognosis patients and in patients with recurrent implantation failure.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to determine the percentage of infertilitypatients who are diagnosed with a non-receptive endometrium according to the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) test and to examine whether adjusting the embryo transfer day according to the proposed shift in the window of implantation improves the pregnancy rate compared to non-ERA-tested patients. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study, including 53 consecutive good prognosis patients (0-2 previous frozen embryo transfers) admitted to our IVF unit for a mock cycle prior to their frozen day-5 embryo (blastocyst) transfer cycle. The mock cycle included an endometrial biopsy for both the ERA test and histological assessment by the Noyes criteria (study group). The next cycle frozen embryo transfer (FET) in the study group was adjusted according to the ERA results. The control group consisted of patients who underwent FET cycles at our clinic during the same period, without performing the endometrial biopsy and ERA testing. RESULTS: During the study period, 503 patients (control group) underwent FET cycles without performing the ERA testing and 41 patients had FET following an ERA test. There were no between-group differences in patients' age, number of previous transfers, endometrial thickness, number of transferred embryos, and ongoing pregnancy rates (35.2 vs. 39%, respectively, p = NS). Out of the 53 patients who performed the ERA test before their first or second FET, five endometrial samples (9.4%) were found to be post-receptive, 29 (54.7%) pre-receptive, and only 19 samples (35.8%) were receptive. Women in the study group with pre- or post-receptive endometrium on ERA testing, the appropriate adjustment in timing of FET according to the ERA test resulted in a 33.3% pregnancy rate, which is comparable to the 35.2% background ongoing pregnancy rate of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Performing the ERA test in a mock cycle prior to a FET does not seem to improve the ongoing pregnancy rate in good prognosis patients. Further large prospective studies are needed to elucidate the role of ERA testing in both good prognosis patients and in patients with recurrent implantation failure.
Authors: Bruce S Shapiro; Said T Daneshmand; Forest C Garner; Martha Aguirre; Cynthia Hudson; Shyni Thomas Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Bruce S Shapiro; Said T Daneshmand; Forest C Garner; Martha Aguirre; Cynthia Hudson Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Patricia Díaz-Gimeno; José A Horcajadas; José A Martínez-Conejero; Francisco J Esteban; Pilar Alamá; Antonio Pellicer; Carlos Simón Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2010-07-08 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Ann Thurin; Jon Hausken; Torbjörn Hillensjö; Barbara Jablonowska; Anja Pinborg; Annika Strandell; Christina Bergh Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-02 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce S Shapiro; Said T Daneshmand; Humberto Restrepo; Forest C Garner; Martha Aguirre; Cynthia Hudson Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Patricia Díaz-Gimeno; Maria Ruiz-Alonso; David Blesa; Nuria Bosch; José A Martínez-Conejero; Pilar Alamá; Nicolás Garrido; Antonio Pellicer; Carlos Simón Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Maria Ruiz-Alonso; David Blesa; Patricia Díaz-Gimeno; Eva Gómez; Manuel Fernández-Sánchez; Francisco Carranza; Joan Carrera; Felip Vilella; Antonio Pellicer; Carlos Simón Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Joachim Alfer; Amir Fattahi; Nathalie Bleisinger; JÜrgen Krieg; Rolf Behrens; Ralf Dittrich; Matthias W Beckmann; Arndt Hartmann; Irmgard Classen-Linke; Roxana M Popovici Journal: In Vivo Date: 2020 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.155