Recurrent implantation failure might be overestimated without PGT-A

Intravenous immunoglobulin for patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure: a 6-year single center retrospective review of clinical outcomes

The effectiveness of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) for patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure (uRIF) remains debated. We retrospectively analysed outcomes of uRIF patients treated with IVIg compared to a separate control uRIF cohort within our center (01/2014-12/2021). Primary outcomes included live birth, miscarriage, or transfer failure. We documented IVIg side effects and maternal/fetal outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was used to assess for association of IVIg exposure with outcomes and adjust for confounders. The study included 143 patients, with a 2:1 ratio of controls to patients receiving IVIg treatment. Patient characteristics were similar between groups. There was higher live birth rate (LBR) in patients receiving IVIg (32/49; 65.3%) compared to controls (32/94; 34%); p < 0.001). When stratifying patients into moderate and severe uRIF (respectively 3-4 and [Formula: see text] 5 previous good quality blastocyst transfer failures), only patients with severe uRIF benefited from IVIg (LBR (20/29 (69%) versus 5/25 (20%) for controls, p = 0.0004). In the logistic regression analysis, IVIg was associated with higher odds of live birth (OR 3.64; 95% CI 1.78-7.67; p = 0.0004). There were no serious adverse events with IVIg. IVIg can be considered in well selected patients with [Formula: see text] 5 previous unexplained, high quality blastocyst transfer failures. A randomized controlled trial is needed to confirm these findings.

Sequential embryo transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion improved pregnancy outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure

OBJECTIVE

To compare the application of sequential embryo transfer, cleavage embryo transfer, and blastocyst transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles in patients with recurrent implantation failure to provide a reference for reproductive clinicians.

METHODS

The 166 patients who underwent frozen-thawed embryo transfer due to recurrent implantation failure in the reproductive center from January 2021 to March 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different embryos transferred, they were divided into cleavage embryo transfer groups (72 cases in Group A), blastocyst transfer group (29 cases in Group B), and sequential transfer group (65 cases in Group C). All three groups were treated with intrauterine perfusion 5 days before embryo transfer. The general data and clinical pregnancy outcome indicators, such as embryo implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, twin rate, were compared among the three groups.

RESULTS

The embryo implantation rate (53.1%), clinical pregnancy rate (76.9%), ongoing pregnancy rate (67.7%) and live birth rate(66.15%) in the sequential transfer group were significantly higher than those in the other two groups (P < 0.05), and the ectopic pregnancy rate was lower in the sequential transfer group.

CONCLUSION

Sequential transfer combined with intrauterine perfusion partially improves clinical pregnancy outcomes and reduces the risk of ectopic pregnancy in frozen embryo cycle transfers in patients with recurrent implantation failure, which may be a favourable transfer reference strategy for patients with recurrent implantation failure.

Evaluation of the endometrial receptivity assay and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy in overcoming recurrent implantation failure

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical usefulness of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in patients with severe and moderate recurrent implantation failure (RIF).

DESIGN

A retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted in patients who failed to achieve implantation following transfer of 3 or more or 5 or more embryos in at least three single embryo transfers; patients were classified as moderate or severe RIF, respectively. Patients with previous RIF were compared based on the testing they received: PGT-A, ERA, or PGT-A+ERA versus a control group with no testing. Mean implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were considered primary outcomes. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed and adjusted ORs were calculated to control possible bias.

RESULTS

Of the 2110 patients belonging to the moderate RIF group, those who underwent transfer of euploid embryos after PGT-A had a higher implantation rate than those who did not. Additionally, the PGT-A group had a significantly higher rate of ongoing pregnancy. The same outcomes measured for the 488 patients in the severe RIF group did not reveal any statistically significant improvements. The use of the ERA test did not appear to significantly improve outcomes in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

PGT-A may be beneficial for patients with moderate recurrent implantation failure but not for severe cases. At its current level of development, ERA does not appear to be clinically useful for patients with RIF.