Mauro Cozzolino1,2,3, Patricia Diaz-Gimeno4, Antonio Pellicer4,5,6, Nicolas Garrido4. 1. IVIRMA, IVI Foundation, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 - Torre A, Planta 1ª, 46026, Valencia, Spain. mauro.cozzolino@ivirma.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, 310 Cedar St, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA. mauro.cozzolino@ivirma.com. 3. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Calle Tulipán, 28933, Móstoles, Madrid, Spain. mauro.cozzolino@ivirma.com. 4. IVIRMA, IVI Foundation, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell, 106 - Torre A, Planta 1ª, 46026, Valencia, Spain. 5. IVIRMA, IVI Roma, Largo Ildebrando Pizzetti 1, 00197, Roma, Italy. 6. Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Valencia, Av. Blásco Ibáñez, 15, 46010, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in patients with severe and moderate recurrent implantation failure (RIF). DESIGN: A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted in patients who failed to achieve implantation following transfer of 3 or more or 5 or more embryos in at least three single embryo transfers; patients were classified as moderate or severe RIF, respectively. Patients with previous RIF were compared based on the testing they received: PGT-A, ERA, or PGT-A+ERA versus a control group with no testing. Mean implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were considered primary outcomes. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed and adjusted ORs were calculated to control possible bias. RESULTS: Of the 2110 patients belonging to the moderate RIF group, those who underwent transfer of euploid embryos after PGT-A had a higher implantation rate than those who did not. Additionally, the PGT-A group had a significantly higher rate of ongoing pregnancy. The same outcomes measured for the 488 patients in the severe RIF group did not reveal any statistically significant improvements. The use of the ERA test did not appear to significantly improve outcomes in either group. CONCLUSIONS: PGT-A may be beneficial for patients with moderate recurrent implantation failure but not for severe cases. At its current level of development, ERA does not appear to be clinically useful for patients with RIF.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical usefulness of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in patients with severe and moderate recurrent implantation failure (RIF). DESIGN: A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted in patients who failed to achieve implantation following transfer of 3 or more or 5 or more embryos in at least three single embryo transfers; patients were classified as moderate or severe RIF, respectively. Patients with previous RIF were compared based on the testing they received: PGT-A, ERA, or PGT-A+ERA versus a control group with no testing. Mean implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were considered primary outcomes. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed and adjusted ORs were calculated to control possible bias. RESULTS: Of the 2110 patients belonging to the moderate RIF group, those who underwent transfer of euploid embryos after PGT-A had a higher implantation rate than those who did not. Additionally, the PGT-A group had a significantly higher rate of ongoing pregnancy. The same outcomes measured for the 488 patients in the severe RIF group did not reveal any statistically significant improvements. The use of the ERA test did not appear to significantly improve outcomes in either group. CONCLUSIONS:PGT-A may be beneficial for patients with moderate recurrent implantation failure but not for severe cases. At its current level of development, ERA does not appear to be clinically useful for patients with RIF.
Authors: C Coughlan; W Ledger; Q Wang; Fenghua Liu; Aygul Demirol; Timur Gurgan; R Cutting; K Ong; H Sallam; T C Li Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2013-09-14 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Eric J Forman; Kathleen H Hong; Kathleen M Ferry; Xin Tao; Deanne Taylor; Brynn Levy; Nathan R Treff; Richard T Scott Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2013-03-30 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Safak Hatirnaz; Alev Ozer; Ebru Hatirnaz; Melahat Atasever; Serdar Başaranoglu; Mine Kanat-Pektas; Murat Api Journal: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 3.561
Authors: Zhihong Yang; Jiaen Liu; Gary S Collins; Shala A Salem; Xiaohong Liu; Sarah S Lyle; Alison C Peck; E Scott Sills; Rifaat D Salem Journal: Mol Cytogenet Date: 2012-05-02 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: Jone Ibañez-Perez; María Díaz-Nuñez; Marc Clos-García; Lucía Lainz; María Iglesias; Miren Díez-Zapirain; Aintzane Rabanal; Laura Bárcena; Monika González; Juan J Lozano; Urko M Marigorta; Esperanza González; Félix Royo; Ana M Aransay; Nerea Subiran; Roberto Matorras; Juan Manuel Falcón-Pérez Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2022-09-30 Impact factor: 6.353