Endometrial scratching: is it all over?

Is there a treatable cause of repeated implantation failure, or is it simply treatment failure by chance?

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does repeated implantation failure (RIF) sometimes have a cause, or is it simply treatment failure by chance?

DESIGN

A hypothetical model of a cohort of 1000 women undergoing four repeated IVF attempts was constructed. A proportion of women with RIF carried an underlying risk factor negatively affecting implantation, compared with women without the factor. In strategy A, women had standard IVF without additional treatment; in strategy B, the women received standard IVF plus an additional treatment. The sensitivity analysis varied the prevalence of the underlying risk factor from 5% to 50%. The model was compared with literature studies where a treatment strategy had been applied.

RESULTS

With strategy A, the clinical pregnancy rate decreased with subsequent IVF attempts (31% in the first transfer with a risk factor prevalence of 5%, to 8% in the fourth transfer with a risk factor prevalence of 50%). As the prevalence increased, the clinical pregnancy rate was higher with strategy A. For strategy B, the clinical pregnancy rates for the modelled cohort decreased with each subsequent IVF attempt. Regardless of the prevalence of the risk factor, the decline in clinical pregnancy rate was less strong (from 32% in the first transfer with a prevalence of 5%, to 25% in the fourth transfer with a prevalence of 50%). When applying the model to the literature studies, the trends expected for strategy B (decreasing clinical pregnancy rates) were not expressed.

CONCLUSIONS

RIF might therefore be of iatrogenic origin due to the low success rate of IVF and might be triggered by the increasing female age associated with higher numbers of RIF.

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.

Fertility specialists' views, behavior, and attitudes towards the use of endometrial scratching in Italy

BACKGROUND

Endometrial scratching (ES) or injury is intentional damage to the endometrium performed to improve reproductive outcomes for infertile women desiring pregnancy. Moreover, recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials demonstrated that ES is not effective, data on the safety are limited, and it should not be recommended in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to assess the view and behavior towards ES among fertility specialists throughout infertility centers in Italy, and the relationship between these views and the attitudes towards the use of ES as an add-on in their commercial setting.

METHODS

Online survey among infertility centers, affiliated to Italian Society of Human Reproduction (SIRU), was performed using a detailed questionnaire including 45 questions with the possibility to give "closed" multi-choice answers for 41 items and "open" answers for 4 items. Online data from the websites of the infertility centers resulting in affiliation with the specialists were also recorded and analyzed. The quality of information about ES given on infertility centers websites was assessed using a scoring matrix including 10 specific questions (scored from 0 to 2 points), and the possible scores ranged from 0 to 13 points ('excellent' if the score was 9 points or more, 'moderate' if the score was between 5 and 8, and 'poor' if it was 4 points or less).

RESULTS

The response rate was of 60.6% (43 questionnaires / 71 infertility SIRU-affiliated centers). All included questionnaires were completed in their entirety. Most physicians (~ 70%) reported to offer ES to less than 10% of their patients. The procedure is mainly performed in the secretory phase (69.2%) using pipelle (61.5%), and usually in medical ambulatory (56.4%) before IVF cycles to improve implantation (71.8%) without drugs administration (e.g., pain drugs, antibiotics, anti-hemorrhagics, or others) before (76.8%) or after (64.1%) the procedure. Only a little proportion of infertility centers included in the analysis proposes formally the ES as an add-on procedure (9.3%), even if, when proposed, the full description of the indications, efficacy, safety, and costs is never addressed. However, the overall information quality of the websites was generally "poor" ranging from 3 to 8 and having a low total score (4.7 ± 1.6; mean ± standard deviation).

CONCLUSIONS

In Italy, ES is a procedure still performed among fertility specialists for improving the implantation rate in IVF patients. Moreover, they have a poor attitude in proposing ES as an add-on in the commercial setting.