| Literature DB >> 31488148 |
Zhaojuan Hou1,2, Qiong Zhang1,2, Jing Zhao1,2, Aizhuang Xu1,2, Aihua He1,2, Xi Huang1,2, Shi Xie1,2, Jing Fu1,2, Lan Xiao1,2, Yanping Li3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is much value in identifying non-invasive ways of measuring endometrial receptivity, as it has the potential to improve outcomes following in vitro fertilization (IVF). It has been suggested that endometrial echogenicity on the day of hCG administration was a good marker of endometrial receptivity. In the daily practice, we notice that patients with non-homogeneous hyperechoic endometrium on the embryo transfer day usually have lower pregnancy rates. We therefore extended the research onward transformation of echo pattern after hCG trigger to analyze the relationship between endometrial echogenicity transformation and IVF outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: Endometrial pattern; Endometrial receptivity; Endometrial secretory transformation; IVF; Ultrasound
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31488148 PMCID: PMC6729034 DOI: 10.1186/s12958-019-0516-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol ISSN: 1477-7827 Impact factor: 5.211
Demographic, COH and embryology data in the two groups
| Characteristics | Pregnanta | Non-pregnant |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Age(y) | 29.70 ± 4.19 | 30.63 ± 4.44 | 0.197 |
| Etiology of infertility | 0.292 | ||
| Tubal | 67 (82.7%) | 59 (90.8) | |
| Male | 6 (7.4%) | 3 (4.6) | |
| Both | 7 (8.6%) | 2 (3.1) | |
| Idiopathic | 1 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | |
| Ovulation disorder | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.5) | |
| BMI (Kg*m−2) | 21.14 ± 2.49 | 21.37 ± 2.84 | 0.598 |
| Duration of infertility(y) | 3.84 ± 2.70 | 3.81 ± 3.11 | 0.947 |
| Basal FSH (mIU/mL) | 6.76 ± 1.91 | 7.22 ± 1.97 | 0.161 |
| Basal LH (mIU/mL) | 6.11 ± 3.24 | 6.06 ± 3.77 | 0.945 |
| Basal E2 (pg/mL) | 40.78 ± 23.60 | 37.30 ± 21.83 | 0.368 |
| AMH (ng/mL) | 4.10 ± 2.73 | 3.82 ± 2.78 | 0.557 |
| AFC, | 14.46 ± 6.34 | 14.29 ± 5.45 | 0.866 |
| Length of stimulation (days) | 11.35 ± 1.94 | 11.43 ± 2.12 | 0.801 |
| Total dose of Gn administered (IU) | 2020.70 ± 789.82 | 2160.00 ± 758.56 | 0.283 |
| bLH levels (mIU/mL) | 1.75 ± 1.03 | 1.53 ± 0.98 | 0.191 |
| bE2 levels (pg/mL) | 2585.65 ± 1177.69 | 2503.44 ± 1167.27 | 0.675 |
| bP levels (ng/mL) | 0.67 ± 0.33 | 0.59 ± 0.30 | 0.116 |
| No. of oocytes retrieved | 10.83 ± 3.97 | 11.20 ± 4.24 | 0.584 |
| Top-quality embryo rate | 0.53 ± 0.25 | 0.50 ± 0.24 | 0.406 |
| No. of embryos transferred | 1.90 ± 0.30 | 1.80 ± 0.40 | 0.095 |
BMI Body mass index, E2 Oestradiol, AMH Anti-Mullerian hormone, AFC Antral follicle count, Gn Gonadotrophin
aPatients who achieved a clinical pregnancy
b on the day of hCG administration
Endometrial echogenicity values after hCG trigger in the two groups
| Group | N | HCG | OPU + 1 | OPU + 2 | OPU + 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnanta | 65 | 0.45 ± 0.14 | 0.75 ± 0.12 | 0.78 ± 0.12 | 0.81 ± 0.11 |
| Non-pregnant | 65 | 0.45 ± 0.17 | 0.67 ± 0.14 | 0.68 ± 0.14 | 0.72 ± 0.14 |
| P | 0.888 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
aPatients who achieved a clinical pregnancy
Fig. 1Endometrial echogenicity in infertile women after hCG trigger during COH cycles. (A) Endometrial echogenicity with non-pregnant women. (B) Endometrial echogenicity with pregnant women. The black arrow points to the endometrium-myometrium interfaces. a, HCG day; b, OPU + 1; c, OPU + 2; d, OPU + 3
Fig. 2Clinical pregnancy rates in different endometrial echogenicity groups assessed on OPU + 1, OPU + 2 and OPU + 3
Fig. 3Implantation rates in different endometrial echogenicity groups assessed on OPU + 1, OPU + 2 and OPU + 3
Fig. 4ROC curve of endometrial echogenicity value on OPU + 1,2,3 for successful clinical pregnancy. The areas under the ROC curve were 0.738(95%CI:0.656–0.819), 0.765(95%CI: 0.688–0.842), 0.714(95%CI:0.624–0.804) respectively on OPU + 1, OPU + 2 and OPU + 3. Endometrial echogenicity value on OPU + 2 had the most predictive value, and the cutoff value was 76.5%. The sensitivity was 61.3% and the specificity was 82.0%
Fig. 5ROC curve of the combination of endometrial echogenicity value on OPU + 2 and thickness on OPU + 3. The areas under the ROC curve was 0.751 (95%CI:0.665–0.836)