Does endometrial receptivity array improve reproductive outcomes in euploid embryo transfer cycles? a systematic review

Besides chromosomal normality, endometrial receptivity is an important factor in determining successful pregnancies. Endometrial receptivity array (ERA), a promising endometrial receptivity test, was speculated to improve the reproductive outcomes. However, its effectiveness is controversial in clinical practice. Therefore, we conducted this review to investigate its role in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. To eliminate the interference of embryo quality, we only analyzed studies that originally reported the reproductive outcomes of patients who underwent ERA-guided euploid embryo transfer (EET). Unexpectedly, it revealed that ERA could not optimize the reproductive outcomes in EET cycles, no matter in general infertile population or in patients with a history of previous failed embryo transfers.

Review of Endometrial Receptivity Array: A Personalized Approach to Embryo Transfer and Its Clinical Applications

Successful outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) rely on both the formation of a chromosomally normal embryo and its implantation in a receptive endometrium. Pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) has been widely accepted as a tool to assess the viability of an embryo. In 2011, the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) was first published as a tool to determine when the endometrium is most receptive to an embryo, commonly referred to as the "window of implantation" (WOI). The ERA uses molecular arrays to assess proliferation and differentiation in the endometrium and screens for inflammatory markers. Unlike PGT-A, there has been dissent within the field concerning the efficacy of the ERA. Many studies that contest the success of the ERA found that it did not improve pregnancy outcomes in patients with an already-good prognosis. Alternatively, studies that utilized the ERA in patients with repeated implantation failure (RIF) and transfer of known euploid embryos demonstrated improved outcomes. This review aims to describe the ERA as a novel technique, review the various settings that the ERA may be used in, such as natural frozen embryo transfer (nFET) and hormone replacement therapy frozen embryo transfer (HRT-FET), and provide a summary of the recent clinical data for embryo transfers in patients with RIF utilizing the ERA.

Endometrial receptivity array before frozen embryo transfer cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the impact of endometrial receptivity array (ERA) before frozen embryo transfer in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). There is a lack of consensus regarding the use of ERA for increasing the success rate of IVF cycles, mainly in terms of the live birth rate.

DESIGN

PubMed, Web of Science and Embase were searched from inception up to February 15, 2022.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Patients undergoing ERA vs no ERA before frozen embryo transfer.

INTERVENTION(S)

Only comparative studies evaluating pregnancy rates of patients undergoing frozen embryo transfer cycles with or without prior ERA were included. Inter-study heterogeneity was also assessed using Cochrane's Q test and the I² statistic. The random-effects model was used to pool the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed to investigate the impact of ERA on pregnancy rates according to the number of previous embryo transfer (ET) failures (≤ 2 previous failed ETs vs. > 2 failed ETs, defined as recurrent implantation failure). Separate analyses were performed according to the study design and adjustment for confounders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES(S)

The primary outcomes of the study were live birth rate and/or ongoing pregnancy rate. Implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate were considered secondary outcomes.

RESULT(S)

Eight studies (representing data on n = 2,784 patients; n = 831 had undergone ERA and n = 1,953 without ERA) were found to be eligible for this meta-analysis. The live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate for the ERA group was not significantly different compared with the non-ERA group (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.79-2.41; I² 83.0%), nor was a difference seen in subgroup analyses based on the number of previous failed ETs. The rates of implantation, biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and miscarriage were also comparable between the ERA and the non-ERA groups. After separate analyses according to the study design and adjustment for confounding factors, overall pooled estimates remained statistically nonsignificant.

CONCLUSION(S)

The findings of the current meta-analysis did not reveal a significant change in the rate of pregnancy after IVF cycles using ERA, and it is not clear whether ERA can increase the pregnancy rate or not.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022310862).

The Clinical Efficacy of Personalized Embryo Transfer Guided by the Endometrial Receptivity Array/Analysis on IVF/ICSI Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: To assess the prevalence of displaced window of implantation (WOI) in infertile women, and the clinical utility of personalized embryo transfer (pET) guided by the endometrial receptivity array/analysis (ERA) on IVF/ICSI outcomes.

Methods: The protocol was registered at Prospero: CRD42020204237. We systematically searched all published English literature related to the prevalence of WOI displacement and ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate in the overall good-prognosis infertile patients (GPP) and/or repeated implantation failure (RIF) patients undergoing IVF/ICSI-ET cycles after ERA test until August 2021.

Result(s): 11 published studies were enrolled in the final analysis. The estimate of the incidence of WOI displacement based on ERA was 38% (95%CI 19–57%) in GPP and 34% (95%CI 24–43%) in RIF, respectively. There was no difference in OPR/LBR between patients undergoing routine ET without ERA test and those who following pET with ERA (39.5 vs. 53.7%, OR 1.28, p = 0.49, 95%CI 0.92–1.77, I² = 0%) in relative GPP. Notably, the meta-analysis revealed that OPR/LBR of patients with RIF undergoing pET who had non-receptive ERA increased to the level of to those undergoing sET with receptive ERA (40.7 vs.49.6%, OR 0.94, p = 0.85, 95%CI 0.70–1.26, I² = 0%).

Conclusion: Considering the approximately one third of infertile women could suffered from displaced WOI, the ERA test emerged as a promising tool. Although the present meta-analysis demonstrates that patients with general good-prognosis may not benefit from ERA, pET guided by ERA significantly increases the chances of pregnancy for non-receptive patients with RIF of endometrial origin.

Different Endometrial Receptivity in Each Hemiuterus of a Woman with Uterus Didelphys and Previous Failed Embryo Transfers

The aim of this report is to describe the clinical case of a 31-year-old patient with uterus didelphys (double uterus) and primary infertility, who had been through several embryo transfers in the context of an in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment with no success. In the case described, the patient is subjected to a new IVF treatment after an endometrial receptivity array (ERA) test performed in both hemiuteri, to assess endometrial receptivity. As a result, the test showed that the right-sided hemiuterus was receptive in 5 days since the beginning of progesterone administration while the left-sided hemiuterus was not receptive in that day. The IVF treatment is performed with vitrified oocytes and a single embryo in day-3 stage is transferred to the right hemiuterus. We concluded that the ERA analysis is a useful tool for IVF patients with uterus didelphys to choose the most appropriate hemiuterus and day to perform embryo transfer.

Efficacy of the endometrial receptivity array for repeated implantation failure in Japan: A retrospective, two-centers study

Aim

This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) as a diagnostic tool and the impact of personalized embryo transfer (pET) for the treatment of patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in Japan.

Methods

Fifty patients with a history of RIF with frozen‐thawed blastocyst transfers were recruited from July, 2015 to April, 2016. Endometrial sampling for the ERA and histological dating and a pET according to the ERA were performed. The receptive (R) or non‐receptive (NR) status of the endometrium as a result of the first ERA, endometrial dating, and pregnancy rates after the pET were analyzed.

Results

Of the patients with RIF, 12 (24%) were NR. Among them, eight (66.7%) were prereceptive. A clinical follow‐up was possible in 44 patients who underwent the pET. The pregnancy rates were 58.8% per patient and 35.3% per first pET in the R patients and 50.0% per patient and 50.0% per first pET in the NR patients. Discrepancies between the ERA results and histological dating were seen more in the NR patients than in the R patients.

Conclusions

For patients with unexplained RIF, there is a significance in searching for their personal window of implantation (WOI) using the ERA, considering the percentage of those who were NR and the pregnancy rates that resulted from the pET. By transferring euploid embryos in a personal WOI, much better pregnancy rates are expected.

Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure

BACKGROUND

Bacterial cells in the human body account for 1-3% of total body weight and are at least equal in number to human cells. Recent research has focused on understanding how the different bacterial communities in the body (eg, gut, respiratory, skin, and vaginal microbiomes) predispose to health and disease. The microbiota of the reproductive tract has been inferred from the vaginal bacterial communities, and the uterus has been classically considered a sterile cavity. However, while the vaginal microbiota has been investigated in depth, there is a paucity of consistent data regarding the existence of an endometrial microbiota and its possible impact in reproductive function.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to test the existence of an endometrial microbiota that differs from that in the vagina, assess its hormonal regulation, and analyze the impact of the endometrial microbial community on reproductive outcome in infertile patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.

STUDY DESIGN

To identify the existence of an endometrial microbiota, paired samples of endometrial fluid and vaginal aspirates were obtained simultaneously from 13 fertile women in prereceptive and receptive phases within the same menstrual cycle (total samples analyzed n = 52). To investigate the hormonal regulation of the endometrial microbiota during the acquisition of endometrial receptivity, endometrial fluid was collected at prereceptive and receptive phases within the same cycle from 22 fertile women (n = 44). Finally, the reproductive impact of an altered endometrial microbiota in endometrial fluid was assessed by implantation, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth rates in 35 infertile patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (total samples n = 41) with a receptive endometrium diagnosed using the endometrial receptivity array. Genomic DNA was obtained either from endometrial fluid or vaginal aspirate and sequenced by 454 pyrosequencing of the V3-V5 region of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene; the resulting sequences were taxonomically assigned using QIIME. Data analysis was performed using R packages. The χ² test, Student t test, and analysis of variance were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

When bacterial communities from paired endometrial fluid and vaginal aspirate samples within the same subjects were interrogated, different bacterial communities were detected between the uterine cavity and the vagina of some subjects. Based on its composition, the microbiota in the endometrial fluid, comprising up to 191 operational taxonomic units, was defined as a Lactobacillus-dominated microbiota (>90% Lactobacillus spp.) or a non-Lactobacillus-dominated microbiota (<90% Lactobacillus spp. with >10% of other bacteria). Although the endometrial microbiota was not hormonally regulated during the acquisition of endometrial receptivity, the presence of a non-Lactobacillus-dominated microbiota in a receptive endometrium was associated with significant decreases in implantation [60.7% vs 23.1% (P = .02)], pregnancy [70.6% vs 33.3% (P = .03)], ongoing pregnancy [58.8% vs 13.3% (P = .02)], and live birth [58.8% vs 6.7% (P = .002)] rates.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate the existence of an endometrial microbiota that is highly stable during the acquisition of endometrial receptivity. However, pathological modification of its profile is associated with poor reproductive outcomes for in vitro fertilization patients. This finding adds a novel microbiological dimension to the reproductive process.

The endometrium in assisted reproductive technology: How thin is thin?

A thin endometrium is encountered infrequently (2.4%) in assisted reproductive technology cycles. When it does occur it is a cause of concern as it is associated with lower implantation rate and pregnancy rate. Though pregnancies have been reported at 4 and 5 mm it is apparent that an endometrial thickness <6 mm is associated with a trend toward lower probability of pregnancy. Hormone replacement therapy – frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles appear to give better results due to an improvement in endometrial receptivity (ER). The etiology of thin endometrium plays a significant part in its receptivity. A number of treatments have been tried to improve endometrial growth, but none has been validated so far. Confirming ER of a thin endometrium by an ER array test before FET offers reassurance.

Live birth after embryo transfer in an unresponsive thin endometrium

A healthy term livebirth in a 35-year-old woman with ovarian failure, hypoplastic uterus and atrophic endometrium after cancer treatment with chemotherapy and radiotherapy was achieved by ovum donation. The detection of a receptive endometrium using a new diagnostic tool of endometrial receptivity encouraged the medical team to carry on with this poor prognosis case. To the best of our knowledge, here we report the thinnest endometrium to date in which a healthy, full term live birth has been described in assisted conception.