| Literature DB >> 36058920 |
Jianmei Liao1, Shuping Yang1, Keyue Chen1, Huijun Chen1, Fan Jiang2, Weina Zhang1, Xuebin Wu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) is a commonly used assisted reproductive technology. Its success depends on many factors, including endometrial receptivity. Endometrial receptivity can be evaluated by ultrasound, endometrial biopsy, and magnetic resonance imaging. Compared with the latter two methods, ultrasound has the advantages of wide availability, non-invasiveness, and low cost. Three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound imaging examines endometrial thickness, morphology, and blood vessels, which are associated with the success of embryo implantation. However, there are no reports of endometrial receptivity assessment by 3D ultrasound. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate endometrial receptivity using 3D ultrasound and construct a predictive model for first-trimester pregnancy inception following IVF-ET.Entities:
Keywords: Endometrial receptivity; First-trimester pregnancy; Predictive model; Three-dimensional ultrasound
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36058920 PMCID: PMC9441094 DOI: 10.1186/s12880-022-00863-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Imaging ISSN: 1471-2342 Impact factor: 2.795
Fig. 1Sub-endometrial blood flow classification. A Type I; B Type II; C Type III
Fig. 2A The uterine artery blood flow parameters. B Endometrial 3D vascularization parameters
Characteristics of the modeling cohort and the external validation cohort
| Modeling cohort | External validation cohort | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-pregnancy (n = 40) | Pregnancy (n = 33) | Non-pregnancy (n = 12) | Pregnancy (n = 18) | |
| Agea | 32.77 (4.95) | 32.73 (4.44) | 34.25 (4.79) | 30.72 (2.63) |
| Endometrial thicknessa | 11.01 (1.95) | 12.08 (2.71) | 12.44 (2.78) | 12.03 (3.15) |
| Endometrial volumea | 4.31 (1.40) | 5.21 (1.81) | 5.09 (2.07) | 5.79 (2.72) |
| Endometrial morphologyc | ||||
| Type A | 5(12.5%) | 2 (6.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (16.7%) |
| Type B | 26 (65.0%) | 28 (84.8%) | 8 (66.7%) | 13 (72.2%) |
| Type C | 9 (22.5%) | 3 (9.1%) | 4 (33.3%) | 2 (11.1%) |
| Uterine artery mPIa | 2.18 (0.38) | 2.12 (0.38) | 1.97 (0.36) | 2.05 (0.50) |
| Uterine artery mRIa | 0.81 (0.05) | 0.80 (0.05) | 0.78 (0.05) | 0.79 (0.05) |
| Uterine artery mS/Da | 5.62 (1.44) | 5.39 (1.38) | 5.04 (1.39) | 5.01 (1.01) |
| VIb | 0.67 [0.21, 1.39] | 1.05 [0.63, 2.95] | 0.18 [0.16, 0.35] | 1.34 [0.64, 3.53] |
| FIa | 15.14 (3.00) | 16.03 (3.91) | 15.07 (3.86) | 17.63 (3.23) |
| VFIa | 0.09 [0.03, 0.21] | 0.17 [0.07, 0.52] | 0.03 [0.02, 0.04] | 0.30 [0.11, 0.61] |
| Sub-endometrial blood flowc | ||||
| Type I | 18 (45.0%) | 10 (30.3%) | 8 (66.7%) | 3 (16.7%) |
| Type II | 19 (47.5%) | 20 (60.6%) | 4 (33.3%) | 12 (66.7%) |
| Type III | 3 (7.5%) | 3 (9.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 3 (16.7%) |
| Endometrial peristalsisc | ||||
| Type I | 6 (15.0%) | 7 (21.2%) | 1 (8.3%) | 1 (5.6%) |
| Type II | 1 (2.5%) | 1 (3.0%) | 1 (8.3%) | 1 (5.6%) |
| Type III | 2 (5.0%) | 3 (9.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.6%) |
| Type IV | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (3.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (5.6%) |
| Type V | 31 (77.5%) | 21 (63.6%) | 10 (83.3%) | 14 (77.8%) |
n, number of patients; a, mean (standard deviation); b, median [interquartile range]; c, numbers (percentage); mPI mean pulsatility index, mRI mean resistance index, mS/D mean systolic peak flow velocity/ end diastolic velocity
Univariate analysis and multivariate Logistic regression analysis
| Univariate analysis OR (95% CI) | Multivariate analysis OR (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.99 (0.88, 1.11) | 0.799 | – | – |
| Endometrial thickness | 1.18 (0.92, 1.51) | 0.191 | 0.70 (0.52, 0.94) | 0.019 |
| Endometrial volume | 1.53 (1.03, 2.28) | 0.037 | 1.54 (0.98, 2.41) | 0.062 |
| Endometrial morphology | ||||
| Type A | Control | – | Control | – |
| Type B | 6.47 (0.69, 60.68) | 0.102 | 2.58 (0.13,51.8) | 0.536 |
| Type C | 2.00 (0.13, 29.81) | 0.615 | 7.86 (0.21, 299.19) | 0.267 |
| Uterine artery mPI | 1.12 (0.24, 5.26) | 0.890 | – | – |
| Uterine artery mRI | 1.62 (0.00, 2.98e+5) | 0.938 | – | – |
| Uterine artery mS/D | 1.07 (0.7, 1.63) | 0.752 | – | – |
| VI | 1.60 (1.03, 2.48) | 0.036 | – | – |
| FI | 1.10 (0.93, 1.31) | 0.27 | – | – |
| VFI | 17.08 (1.36, 215.12) | 0.028 | 33.3 (1.6, 692.38) | 0.024 |
| Sub-endometrial blood flow | ||||
| Type I | Control | Control | ||
| Type II | 3.07 (0.91, 10.37) | 0.071 | 0.70 (0.11, 4.44) | 0.704 |
| Type III | 2.17 (0.24, 19.28) | 0.488 | 0.50(0.02, 11.44) | 0.663 |
| Endometrial peristalsis | ||||
| Type I | 0.83 (0.04, 16.99) | 0.906 | – | – |
| Type II | Control | |||
| Type III | 2.00 (0.05, 78.25) | 0.711 | – | – |
| Type IV | 5.76e+6 (0.00, ∞) | 0.991 | – | – |
| Type V | 0.84 (0.05, 14.57) | 0.906 | – | – |
e+5, 105; e+6, 106; ∞, positive infinity
Fig. 3ROC curve
Fig. 4Calibration curve. A the training set of the modeling cohort; B the testing set of the modeling cohort; C: the external validation cohort