Literature DB >> 35710597

Live birth after transfer of a single euploid vitrified-warmed blastocyst according to standard timing vs. timing as recommended by endometrial receptivity analysis.

Nicole Doyle1, Joshua C Combs2, Samad Jahandideh3, Victoria Wilkinson3, Kate Devine3, Jeanne E O'Brien3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) improves live births in patients with and without a history of unsuccessful frozen embryo transfers (FETs).
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: Large reproductive center. PATIENT(S): Patients with and without ERA before euploid single FET were included in the analysis. INTERVENTION(S): Subjects in the exposed group underwent ERA and ERA-timed FETs. Subjects in the unexposed group followed a standard protocol FET without ERA. Outcomes were compared between nonreceptive and receptive subjects undergoing an ERA-timed FET and between ERA-timed vs. standard protocol FETs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome was a live birth; secondary outcomes were biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates. RESULT(S): A total of 307 ERA-timed FETs and 2,284 standard protocol FETs were analyzed. One hundred twenty-five patients (40.7%) were ERA receptive, and 182 (59.3%) were ERA nonreceptive. After adjusting for the number of the previously failed FETs, there was no difference in the proportion of receptive and nonreceptive ERA results. There were no statistically significant differences in live births in patients with ERA-receptive vs. ERA-nonreceptive results (48.8% and 41.7%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio 1.17; 95% CI, 0.97-1.40). There were no statistically significant differences in live births in patients with or without ERA testing results before FET (44.6% and 51.3%, respectively; adjusted odds ratio 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.04). CONCLUSION(S): Patients with an increasing number of previous failed euploid FET cycles are not at an increased risk of a displaced window of implantation. Patients categorized as receptive vs. nonreceptive and those without ERA testing results have comparable FET success rates.
Copyright © 2022 American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ERA; Endometrial receptivity analysis; PGT-A; window of implantation

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35710597      PMCID: PMC9329263          DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.05.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fertil Steril        ISSN: 0015-0282            Impact factor:   7.490


  15 in total

1.  A 5-year multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing personalized, frozen and fresh blastocyst transfer in IVF.

Authors:  Carlos Simón; Carlos Gómez; Sergio Cabanillas; Iavor Vladimirov; Gemma Castillón; Juan Giles; Kubra Boynukalin; Necati Findikli; Mustafa Bahçeci; Israel Ortega; Carmina Vidal; Miyako Funabiki; Alexandra Izquierdo; Lourdes López; Susana Portela; Nilo Frantz; Marcos Kulmann; Sagiri Taguchi; Elena Labarta; Francisco Colucci; Shari Mackens; Xavier Santamaría; Elkin Muñoz; Saúl Barrera; Juan Antonio García-Velasco; Manuel Fernández; Marcos Ferrando; María Ruiz; Ben W Mol; Diana Valbuena
Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online       Date:  2020-06-15       Impact factor: 3.828

2.  ASRM standard embryo transfer protocol template: a committee opinion.

Authors:  Alan Penzias; Kristin Bendikson; Samantha Butts; Christos Coutifaris; Tommaso Falcone; Gregory Fossum; Susan Gitlin; Clarisa Gracia; Karl Hansen; Jennifer Mersereau; Randall Odem; Robert Rebar; Richard Reindollar; Mitchell Rosen; Jay Sandlow; Michael Vernon
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2017-03-11       Impact factor: 7.329

3.  The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers.

Authors:  J Tan; A Kan; J Hitkari; B Taylor; N Tallon; G Warraich; A Yuzpe; G Nakhuda
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-01-11       Impact factor: 3.412

4.  What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles?

Authors:  Ana Raquel Neves; Marta Devesa; Francisca Martínez; Sandra Garcia-Martinez; Ignacio Rodriguez; Nikolaos P Polyzos; Buenaventura Coroleu
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2019-07-27       Impact factor: 3.412

5.  Endometrial thickness is predictive of histologic endometrial maturation in women undergoing hormone replacement for ovum donation.

Authors:  G E Hofmann; J Thie; R T Scott; D Navot
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 7.329

6.  Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate.

Authors:  Carrie Riestenberg; Lindsay Kroener; Molly Quinn; Kaycee Ching; Gayane Ambartsumyan
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 7.329

Review 7.  Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Elias M Dahdouh; Jacques Balayla; Juan Antonio García-Velasco
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 7.329

8.  Evaluating the effect of age on endometrial responsiveness to hormone replacement therapy: a histologic ultrasonographic, and tissue receptor analysis.

Authors:  M V Sauer; R A Miles; L Dahmoush; R J Paulson; M Press; D Moyer
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.412

9.  The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity.

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

10.  Blastocyst biopsy with comprehensive chromosome screening and fresh embryo transfer significantly increases in vitro fertilization implantation and delivery rates: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Richard T Scott; Kathleen M Upham; Eric J Forman; Kathleen H Hong; Katherine L Scott; Deanne Taylor; Xin Tao; Nathan R Treff
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2013-06-01       Impact factor: 7.329

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.