Effects of endometrial injury on frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer in hormone replacement cycles

The impact of endometrial scratch performed in mid-luteal phase on the endometrium whole genome transcriptomic profiles in following menstrual cycle

The value of endometrial scratch in women with recurrent embryo transfer has been controversial. Endometrial scratch is often performed in the mid-luteal phase of the cycle preceding embryo transfer but there is little scientific evidence if it affects the whole genome transcriptomic profile of peri-implantation endometrium in the following cycle. A prospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted in a university assisted reproductive unit. A total of eight women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) were included. Each participant had endometrial biopsy twice, first biopsy on day LH + 7 in natural cycle and second on day LH + 7 of the following cycle. R package was used to identify differentially expressed genes between the sample and enriched gene ontology. However, the paired sample showed no significant difference, neither known endometrial receptive gene set nor other genes, before and after the endometrial scratch. It suggests that endometrial scratch performed during previous mid-luteal phase did not affect the transcriptomic profiles of endometrium on day LH + 7 in women with RIF.

ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure

STUDY QUESTION

How should recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in patients undergoing ART be defined and managed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This is the first ESHRE good practice recommendations paper providing a definition for RIF together with recommendations on how to investigate causes and contributing factors, and how to improve the chances of a pregnancy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

RIF is a challenge in the ART clinic, with a multitude of investigations and interventions offered and applied in clinical practice, often without biological rationale or with unequivocal evidence of benefit.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, if available, and the results of a previously published survey on clinical practice in RIF and the expertise of the working group. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane focussing on 'recurrent reproductive failure', 'recurrent implantation failure', and 'repeated implantation failure'.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure included eight members representing the ESHRE Special Interest Groups for Implantation and Early Pregnancy, Reproductive Endocrinology, and Embryology, with an independent chair and an expert in statistics. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the working group, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey on uptake in clinical practice. The draft document was then open to ESHRE members for online peer review and was revised in light of the comments received.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The working group recommends considering RIF as a secondary phenomenon of ART, as it can only be observed in patients undergoing IVF, and that the following description of RIF be adopted: 'RIF describes the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered to be viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often in a specific patient to warrant consideration of further investigations and/or interventions'. It was agreed that the recommended threshold for the cumulative predicted chance of implantation to identify RIF for the purposes of initiating further investigation is 60%. When a couple have not had a successful implantation by a certain number of embryo transfers and the cumulative predicted chance of implantation associated with that number is greater than 60%, then they should be counselled on further investigation and/or treatment options. This term defines clinical RIF for which further actions should be considered. Nineteen recommendations were formulated on investigations when RIF is suspected, and 13 on interventions. Recommendations were colour-coded based on whether the investigations/interventions were recommended (green), to be considered (orange), or not recommended, i.e. not to be offered routinely (red).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

While awaiting the results of further studies and trials, the ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure recommends identifying RIF based on the chance of successful implantation for the individual patient or couple and to restrict investigations and treatments to those supported by a clear rationale and data indicating their likely benefit.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This article provides not only good practice advice but also highlights the investigations and interventions that need further research. This research, when well-conducted, will be key to making progress in the clinical management of RIF.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The meetings and technical support for this project were funded by ESHRE. N.M. declared consulting fees from ArtPRED (The Netherlands) and Freya Biosciences (Denmark); Honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, Abbott, and IBSA; being co-founder of Verso Biosense. He is Co-Chief Editor of Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO). D.C. declared being an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, and declared honoraria for lectures from Merck, Organon, IBSA, and Fairtility; support for attending meetings from Cooper Surgical, Fujifilm Irvine Scientific. G.G. declared that he or his institution received financial or non-financial support for research, lectures, workshops, advisory roles, or travelling from Ferring, Merck, Gedeon-Richter, PregLem, Abbott, Vifor, Organon, MSD, Coopersurgical, ObsEVA, and ReprodWissen. He is an Editor of the journals Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biomedicine Online, and Editor in Chief of Journal Gynäkologische Endokrinologie. He is involved in guideline developments and quality control on national and international level. G.L. declared he or his institution received honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, Vianex/Organon, and MSD. He is an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, immediate past Coordinator of Special Interest Group for Reproductive Endocrinology of ESHRE and has been involved in Guideline Development Groups of ESHRE and national fertility authorities. D.J.M. declared being an Associate Editor for Human Reproduction Open and statistical Advisor for Reproductive Biomedicine Online. B.T. declared being shareholder of Reprognostics and she or her institution received financial or non-financial support for research, clinical trials, lectures, workshops, advisory roles or travelling from support for attending meetings from Ferring, MSD, Exeltis, Merck Serono, Bayer, Teva, Theramex and Novartis, Astropharm, Ferring. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

Immunomodulation for unexplained recurrent implantation failure: where are we now?

In brief

Immune dysfunction may contribute to or cause recurrent implantation failure. This article summarizes normal and pathologic immune responses at implantation and critically appraises currently used immunomodulatory therapies.

Abstract

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) may be defined as the absence of pregnancy despite the transfer of ≥3 good-quality blastocysts and is unexplained in up to 50% of cases. There are currently no effective treatments for patients with unexplained RIF. Since the maternal immune system is intricately involved in mediating endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation, both insufficient and excessive endometrial inflammatory responses during the window of implantation are proposed to lead to implantation failure. Recent strategies to improve conception rates in RIF patients have focused on modulating maternal immune responses at implantation, through either promoting or suppressing inflammation. Unfortunately, there are no validated, readily available diagnostic tests to confirm immune-mediated RIF. As such, immune therapies are often started empirically without robust evidence as to their efficacy. Like other chronic diseases, patient selection for immunomodulatory therapy is crucial, and personalized medicine for RIF patients is emerging. As the literature on the subject is heterogenous and rapidly evolving, we aim to summarize the potential efficacy, mechanisms of actions and side effects of select therapies for the practicing clinician.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF)

BACKGROUND

Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in the process of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury (also known as endometrial scratching), defined as intentional damage to the endometrium, can increase the chance of pregnancy in women undergoing IVF.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and frozen embryo transfer.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2020 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and two trial registries. We also checked the reference sections of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF, versus no intervention or a sham procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two independent review authors screened studies, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required. Due to the high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, the primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at a low risk of bias for selection bias and other bias. Sensitivity analysis was then performed including all studies. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage.

MAIN RESULTS

Endometrial injury versus control (no procedure or a sham procedure) A total of 37 studies (8786 women) were included in this comparison. Most studies performed endometrial injury by pipelle biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle before the IVF cycle. The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and included eight studies. The effect of endometrial injury on live birth is unclear as the result is consistent with no effect, or a small reduction, or an improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I² = 15%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth with IVF is usually 27%, then the chance when using endometrial injury would be somewhere between < 27% and 32%. Similarly, the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy is unclear (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy from IVF is normally 32%, then the chance when using endometrial injury before IVF is between 31% and 37%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy due to high risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity. Endometrial injury probably results in little to no difference in chance of miscarriage (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), and this result was similar in the sensitivity analysis that included all studies. The result suggests that if the chance of miscarriage with IVF is usually 6.0%, then when using endometrial injury it would be somewhere between 4.2% and 6.8%. Endometrial injury was associated with mild to moderate pain (approximately 4 out of 10), and was generally associated with some minimal bleeding. The evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and therefore all primary analyses were graded as moderate certainty. Higher versus lower degree of injury Only one small study was included in this comparison (participants = 129), which compared endometrial injury using two different instruments in the cycle prior to the IVF cycle: a pipelle catheter and a Shepard catheter. This trial was excluded from the primary analysis due to risk of bias. In the sensitivity analysis, all outcomes reported for this study were graded as very-low certainty due to risk of bias, and as such we were not able to interpret the study results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effect of endometrial injury on live birth and clinical pregnancy among women undergoing IVF is unclear. The results of the meta-analyses are consistent with an increased chance, no effect and a small reduction in these outcomes. We are therefore uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the chance of live birth or clinical pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. Endometrial injury does not appear to affect the chance of miscarriage. It is a somewhat painful procedure associated with a small amount of bleeding. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the routine use of endometrial injury for women undergoing IVF.

The Addition of Endometrial Injury to Freeze-All Strategy in Women with Repeated Implantation Failures

(1) Background: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) after IVF remains a challenging topic for fertility specialists and a frustrating reality for patients with infertility. Various approaches have been investigated and applied towards the improvement of clinical outcomes. Through a nonrandomized clinical trial, we evaluated the effect of the combination of hysteroscopic endometrial injury and the freeze-all technique on pregnancy parameters in a cohort of RIF patients; (2) Methods: The study group comprised of 30 patients with RIF that underwent a hysteroscopic endometrial injury prior to a frozen embryo transfer cycle; another 30 patients with RIF, comprising the control group, underwent a standard frozen cycle with no adjuvant treatment before. Live birth comprised the primary outcome. Logistic and Poisson regression analyses were implemented to reveal potential independent predictors for all outcomes. (3) Results: Live birth rates were similar between groups (8/30 vs. 3/30, p = 0.0876). Biochemical and clinical pregnancy and miscarriages were also independent of the procedure (p = 0.7812, p = 0.3436 and p = 0.1213, respectively). The only confounding factor that contributed to biochemical pregnancy was the number of retrieved oocytes (0.1618 ± 0.0819, p = 0.0481); (4) Conclusions: The addition of endometrial injury to the freeze-all strategy in infertile women with RIF does not significantly improve pregnancy rates, including live birth. A properly conducted RCT with adequate sample size could give a robust answer.

The number of previous failed embryo transfer cycles is an independent factor affecting implantation rate in women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment: A retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT

The implantation rate (IR) in assisted reproductive technologies such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection is affected by many different factors such as age, quality of embryo, and stage of embryo development. This study aimed to investigate to what extent the number of previous failed embryo transfer cycles is an independent factor affecting IR.This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of a consecutive series of 6376 day-3 embryo transfer (ET) cycles following IVF between January 2012 and August 2018. None of the subjects underwent endometrial scratch/injury prior to the treatment cycle, or received intravenous immunoglobulin, steroid, dehydroepiandrosterone, intralipid or heparin during the treatment with the aim of improving implantation rates.Multiple regression analysis showed that the 3 most important independent factors affecting the IR, in decreasing of importance: age, frozen or fresh embryo transfer and the number of previous ET cycles. Having controlled for 2 of the more important confounding variables including maternal age and the type of embryo, the IR in women who had 0, 1, 2, and 3 or more previous failed ET cycles were 45.8%, 35.9%, 31.2%, 21.0%, respectively (P < .001).Repeated implantation failure is a significant independent factor affecting the IR. The number of previous failed ET cycles should be considered in counselling women regarding the prognosis of a further IVF-ET treatment cycle.

Efficacy of therapies and interventions for repeated embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of the different therapeutic options for repeated embryo implantation failure (RIF) on a subsequent IVF cycle outcome. Twenty-two RCTs and nineteen observational studies were included. Pooling of results showed a beneficial effect of intrauterine PBMC infusion on both CPR (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.58-3.00; p < 0.00001; OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.22-3.36; p = 0.006) and LBR (RR 2.41; 95% CI 1.40-4.16; p = 0.002; OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.13-12.29; p = 0.03), of subcutaneous G-CSF administration on CPR (RR 2.29; 95% CI 1.58-3.31; p < 0.0001) and of intrauterine PRP infusion on CPR (RR 2.45; 95% CI 1.55-3.86; p = 0.0001). Observational studies also demonstrated a positive effect of IVIG and intrauterine hCG infusion on both CPR and LBR and of atosiban on CPR. Studies investigating intrauterine G-CSF infusion, LMWH, intravenous intralipid, hysteroscopy, blastocyst-stage ET, ZIFT, PGT-A and AH failed to observe an impact on IVF outcome. The quality of the evidence that emerged from RCTs focused on intrauterine PBMC infusion and subcutaneous G-CSF administration was moderate. For all other therapies/interventions it varied from low to very low. In conclusion, intrauterine PBMC infusion and subcutaneous G-CSF administration are the most promising therapeutic options for RIF. However, further well conducted RCTs are necessary before their introduction into clinical practice.

The impact of endometrial injury on reproductive outcomes: results of an updated meta-analysis

Background

It is still unclear whether endometrial injury (EI) has a beneficial effect on reproductive outcomes, and if so, the optimal procedure characteristics are not clear. All previous papers concluded that more research is needed, and as additional studies were recently published, the insights on EI have changed significantly.

Methods

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to identify randomized controlled trials examining the EI effect on IVF outcomes in women at least one previous failed cycle.

Results

2015 references were identified through database searching. Ultimately, 17 studies were included, involving 3016 patients. Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (RR = 1.19, [95% CI 1.06-1.32], P = .003) and live birth rate (LBR) (RR = 1.18, [95%CI 1.04-1.34], P = .009) were significantly improved after EI. Number of previous failed cycles, maternal age, and hysteroscopy were found to be relevant confounders. Higher CPR and LBR were found when EI was performed twice, while performing EI once did not significantly improve reproductive rates.

Conclusion

According to the present meta-analysis, EI may be offered to younger patients with few previous failed cycles and should be additionally studied in an RCT comparing different timing and more than one EI before treatment.

The impact of intentional endometrial injury on reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endometrial injury is an intentional damage made to the endometrium, usually produced by a Pipelle catheter. Over the last two decades, endometrial injury has been studied to improve implantation rates and decrease the incidence of implantation failure in invitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Recently, additional studies of endometrial injury, performed not only in patients with implantation failure but also in intrauterine insemination cycles, have been conducted, and the endometrial injury made by hysteroscopy has been researched. The evidence describing the impact of endometrial injury is controversial; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the issue.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

Our objective is to review the research that has been done until now and perform a meta-analysis regarding endometrial injury and its influence on implantation success and pregnancy rates in patients with at least one failed IVF cycle. In particular, we aim to study the efficacy of the procedure and look for confounding factors, such as maternal age, in assessing the efficacy of endometrial injury.

SEARCH METHODS

The systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Study protocol can be assessed at PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42018092773). Searches were conducted by an experienced research librarian in the following databases: MEDLINE(R) using the OvidSP interface and PUBMED, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. This review considered for inclusion randomized-controlled trials examining the success of performing local endometrial injury on IVF outcomes in women with previous failed IVF cycles.

OUTCOMES

Ten studies, comprising a total of 1260 patients, were selected. Overall, when studying the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy rates (CPRs) and live birth rates (LBRs), higher rates were shown in the endometrial injury group. However, endometrial injury did not significantly improve CPRs and LBRs, when considering sub-group analyses of studies including patients with two or more failed IVF cycles, studies examining older patients or studies which did not include hysteroscopy. There was no significant difference found regarding multiple pregnancy rates, while a handful of studies showed an improvement in miscarriage rates.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Endometrial injury should be used restrictively and not routinely in clinics. Maternal age and number of previous failed treatment cycles may be contributing factors which can influence the results when studying the effect of endometrial local injury. It is possible that the relative contribution of endometrial receptivity to the chances of implantation decreases with any additional failed cycle. The optimal study to prove the efficacy of local endometrial injury on implantation and pregnancy rates, should be a random-controlled trial studying the effect of local endometrial injury in oocyte donation cycles, in recipients with repeated implantation failure. This kind of study will conclude whether local endometrial injury is an efficient procedure with minimum confounding factors, and may assist in defining the population, even outside of donation cycles, that will benefit from the procedure.

Effect of endometrial injury during menstruation on clinical outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: A randomized control trial

Aim

To explore the clinical effect of endometrial injury (EI) on the third day of the menstrual cycle before frozen–thawed embryo transfer (frozen–thawed ET) on patients experienced two or more implantation failures.

Methods

A total of 200 patients who suffered at least two failed hormone‐replacement therapies and frozen–thawed ET were randomly divided into two groups: EI group and control group (n = 100 in each group). Patients in the EI group received local EI with a Pipelle catheter on the third day of the menstrual cycle before frozen–thawed ET. Primary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy and implantation rates. Secondary outcomes were biochemical, multiple and ectopic pregnancy rates and abortion rates.

Results

The rate of live birth in EI group (51.00%) was significantly higher than that of control group (36.00%) (P = 0.032). Clinical pregnancy and implantation rates in EI group were significantly higher comparing to control group (64.00% vs 48.00%, P = 0.023 and 46.74% vs 30.11%, P = 0.001). The rate of multiple pregnancy in EI group (37.50%) was significantly higher than that of control group (18.75%) (P = 0.031). No significant difference in ectopic pregnancy rate and abortion rate was observed between EI group and control group.

Conclusion

Applying EI to patients experienced two or more implantation failures on the third day of the menstrual cycle before frozen–thawed ET can improve clinical outcomes.

Embryo transfer associated with hormone replacement therapy cycles using assisted reproductive technology increases placenta accreta spectrum

AIM

To evaluate obstetric outcomes in embryo transfer (ET) during estrogen with progestin hormone replacement therapy (HRT) cycles using assisted reproductive technology (ART).

METHODS

Of the 118 singleton pregnancies conceived with ART and delivered between January 2015 and December 2017, we reviewed the data of 87 cases that had information on HRT at the time of ET. Data on pregnancy outcomes included the presence of small for gestational age fetuses, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, placenta previa (including low-lying placenta), placental abruption and placenta accreta spectrum (including placenta accreta, placenta increta and placenta percreta). We investigated the relationship between HRT cycles and adverse placental outcomes (placenta accreta spectrum, placental abruption, placenta previa, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and small for gestational age fetuses). We then analyzed the associations that correlated with adverse placental outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients with ET during HRT cycles were more likely to have placenta accreta spectrum. During the study period, 87 out of 118 singleton live births using ART had information on HRT (60 HRT cycles and 27 ovulation cycles). The incidence of placenta accreta spectrum was significantly higher in the HRT cycle group than in the ovulation cycle group (HRT cycle, 31.7% [19 of 60] vs ovulation cycle, 7.4% [2 of 27]; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The obstetric outcomes occurring in pregnancies involving HRT use may differ among ET cycles. ET during HRT cycles were associated with adverse obstetric outcomes due to placenta accreta spectrum. The potential interaction between HRT cycles and adverse placental events is novel and warrants further investigation.

Effects of endometrial injury on frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer in hormone replacement cycles

Aim

To evaluate whether local endometrial injury would improve the pregnancy rates after frozen‐thawed blastocyst transfer in cycles with hormone replacement.

Methods

Seventy‐seven patients who were aged <40 years with a history of at least three unsuccessful embryo transfers and who underwent frozen‐thawed blastocyst transfer during hormone replacement cycles between February and June, 2013 were studied. They were allocated into two groups based on the last digit of their clinical record number: an experimental group (n=22), excluding patients who withheld consent or who were unable to undergo treatment, and a control group (n=55). In the experimental group, the endometrium was scratched once with an endometrial sampler during the luteal phase of the cycle preceding the embryo transfer.

Results

There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics between the groups. The clinical pregnancy rate was 6% in the experimental group and 22% in the control group. Among these, the ongoing pregnancy rate was 100% in the experimental group and 50% in the control group.

Conclusion

Endometrial injury might increase the pregnancy rates after frozen‐thawed blastocyst transfer and decrease the risk of miscarriage in patients with a history of unsuccessful embryo transfers.