Comparison of zygote intrafallopian tube transfer and transcervical uterine embryo transfer in patients with repeated implantation failure

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.

Zygote intrafallopian tube transfer versus intrauterine cleavage or blastocyst stage transfer after intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in patients with repeated implantation failure: A prospective follow-up study

AIM

This study aimed to compare the outcomes between zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) with intrauterine day-3 (cleavage stage) embryo transfer and intrauterine day-5 (blastocyst stage) embryo transfer in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This prospective study was performed at Royan Institute, Tehran, Iran, between January 2012 and January 2014. Two hundred fifty women with more than three unexplained implantation failures were divided non-randomly into three groups according to embryonic age and methods used as follows: (i) intrauterine cleavage-stage embryo transfer (n = 100); (ii) intrauterine blastocyst-stage embryo transfer (n = 50); and (iii) ZIFT (n = 100). Implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates were our main outcomes.

RESULTS

Patients' characteristics and ovarian response were comparable among the three groups. Implantation rate (56.1% vs 27.9%) was significantly higher in the blastocyst group as compared to the ZIFT group; however, clinical pregnancy rate (38% vs 23%) was not statistically significantly different between the two groups, but due to the significantly higher miscarriage rate (34.7% vs 5.3%) in the ZIFT group, the live birth rate was significantly higher in the blastocyst group (P = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the cleavage-stage and blastocyst-stage groups in terms of implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage and live birth rates.

CONCLUSION

We do not recommend the use of the ZIFT procedure for patients with repeated implantation failures. It seems that replication of cleavage- or blastocyst-stage embryo transfer is more efficient and affordable.

Should zygote intrafallopian transfer be offered to all patients with unexplained repeated in-vitro fertilization cycle failures?

BACKGROUND

One of the suggest strategy for patients with repeated implantation failure (RIF) is zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT). However, no data exist regarding to the issue of when and under which circumstances should ZIFT be offered to patients with RIF? We therefore aimed to examine whether repeated implantation failure (RIF) patients characteristics or their previous controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) variables may differentiate between those who will conceive following a ZIFT cycle and those who will not.

METHODS

Forty seven consecutive women admitted to our IVF unit during a 7 year period, who underwent ZIFT for RIF, were included. Ovarian stimulation characteristics, number of oocytes retrieved and number and quality of zygotes/embryos transferred were assessed and compared between the ZIFT cycle and the previous IVF/ICSI cycle and between those who conceived following the ZIFT cycle and those who did not.

RESULTS

Twelve clinical pregnancies (clinical pregnancy rate- 25.5%) were recorded following the ZIFT cycle. Those who benefit from ZIFT were young patients (≤31 yrs), who underwent ≤6 cycle attempts, yielding over eight 2PN embryos with low (≤0.4) ratio of number of top-quality embryos to total 2PN embryos. Moreover, in those destined for a ZIFT cycle, only those with >7 2PN embryo should undergo a transfer of at least five 2PN embryos.

CONCLUSIONS

Further large prospective studies are needed to identify the specific characteristics of RIF women who may benefit from ZIFT.

Investigation and treatment of repeated implantation failure following IVF-ET

Pregnancy rate following one cycle of IVF and ET can be as high as 60%. But even in the very successful units, some couples fail repeatedly. The causes for repeated implantation failure (RIF) may be because of reduced endometrial receptivity, embryonic defects or multifactorial causes. Various uterine pathologies, such as thin endometrium, altered expression of adhesive molecules and immunological factors, may decrease endometrial receptivity, whereas genetic abnormalities of the male or female, sperm defects, embryonic aneuploidy or zona hardening are among the embryonic reasons for failure of implantation. Endometriosis and hydrosalpinges may adversely influence both. In this mini review, we discuss the suggested methods for evaluation and treatment of RIF: repeated hysteroscopy, myomectomy, endometrial stimulation, immunotherapy, preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), assisted hatching, zygote intra-Fallopian transfer (ZIFT), co-culture, blastocyst transfer, cytoplasmic transfer, tailoring stimulation protocols and salpingectomy for hydrosalpinges.