scholarly journals Interleukin 6 in follicular fluid reduces embryo fragmentation and improves the clinical pregnancy rate

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 1171-1176
Author(s):  
Jie Yang ◽  
Xiaoling Yang ◽  
Hong Yang ◽  
Yang Bai ◽  
Hao Zha ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tal Lazer ◽  
Shir Dar ◽  
Ekaterina Shlush ◽  
Basheer S. Al Kudmani ◽  
Kevin Quach ◽  
...  

We examined whether treatment with minimum-dose stimulation (MS) protocol enhances clinical pregnancy rates compared to high-dose stimulation (HS) protocol. A retrospective cohort study was performed comparing IVF and pregnancy outcomes between MS and HS gonadotropin-antagonist protocol for patients with poor ovarian reserve (POR). Inclusion criteria included patients with an anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ≤8 pmol/L and/or antral follicle count (AFC) ≤5 on days 2-3 of the cycle. Patients from 2008 exclusively had a HS protocol treatment, while patients in 2010 had treatment with a MS protocol exclusively. The MS protocol involved letrozole at 2.5 mg over 5 days, starting from day 2, overlapping with gonadotropins, starting from the third day of letrozole at 150 units daily. GnRH antagonist was introduced once one or more follicles reached 14 mm or larger. The HS group received gonadotropins (≥300 IU/day) throughout their antagonist cycle. Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the MS protocol compared to the HS protocol (P=0.007). Furthermore, the live birth rate was significantly higher in the MS group compare to the HS group (P=0.034). In conclusion, the MS IVF protocol is less expensive (lower gonadotropin dosage) and resulted in a higher clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate than a HS protocol for poor responders.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Francisquini ◽  
L M Oliveir. Gomes ◽  
G C Macedo ◽  
L E K Ferreira ◽  
G C Macedo ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question Can the algorithm used by EmbryoScopePlus software predict implantation and clinical pregnancy in women of different age groups on fresh transfer? Summary answer The embryo score generated by KIDScoreD5 is highly related to the rates of implantation and clinical pregnancy in fresh transfers in women of different age. What is known already Artificial Intelligence algorithms use statistics to find patterns in large amounts of data and describe a non-biased approach to multiparameter analysis. Several algorithms have been described, but none has been adopted for universal use. KIDScoreD5 is the algorithm included in the EmbryoScopePlus system and classifies embryos according to the cleavage times and morphology of the blastocyst. Version 3, more current, includes the annotations of the number of pronuclei, the time of division for 2, 3, 4 and 5 cells, time to start of blastulation, and morphology of the Internal Cell Mass and trophectoderm. Study design, size, duration Retrospective study evaluated 86 embryos from January to December 2019 at the Reproferty clinic, grown at EmbryoScopePlus and transferred fresh on the fifth day of embryo development. The morphological and morphokinetic parameters were automatically evaluated by the software and in case of any mistake, they were manually corrected. The embryos were evaluated by KIDScoreD5 v3 in different scores from 0.0 to 9.9 and divided into 4 groups (0.0–2.5; 2.6–5.0; 5.1–7.5; 7.6 –9.9). Participants/materials, setting, methods The inclusion criterion was transfer of a single embryo with 1 gestational sac and positive FHB and transfer of two embryos with 2 gestational sac and positive FHB. Patients with progesterone on the trigger day ≥ 1.5ng/mL and/or with endometrium ≤7mm were excluded. The implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were calculated according to age group, G1: ≤35 years; G2: between 36 and 39 years old; G3: ≥40 years, within the embryo classification. Main results and the role of chance For patients in group 1 (n = 31 embryos), 33.4% of the embryos were classified between 2.6–5.0; 69.20% of embryos with scores between 5.1–7.5 and 57.10% of embryos with scores between 7.6–9.9, with 100% of embryos that implanted, regardless of classification, resulting in clinical pregnancy . For group 2 (n = 35 embryos), they only showed an implantation rate for embryos where the scores were 5.1–7.5 (33.4%) and 7.6 - 9.9 (71.4%) , with 100% being the clinical pregnancy rate in these groups. For patients in group 3 (n = 24 embryos), we also observed implantation only in groups of embryos with a score of 5.1–7.5 (37.5%) and 7.6–9.9 (18.5%) , but the clinical pregnancy rate was lower when compared to the other age groups of the patients, with 33.5% for embryos having a score between 5.1–7.5 and 50% for the group 7.6–9.9. Regarding the average score given by the classification of KIDScore Day 5 v. 3 for embryos that implanted, for patients aged 35 years or less, the average was 6.92; for patients between 36 and 39 years old, the average was 8.06 and for patients aged 40 years or older, the average was 7.32. Limitations, reasons for caution This project is limited because it is a retrospective study and evaluated embryos from a single breeding center. Multicenter and prospective studies are necessary to validate the universal use of the KIDScoreD5 v3 algorithm in time-lapse incubators. Wider implications of the findings: The study showed the ability of KIDScoreD5 v3 to assist the embryologist in deciding which embryo to transfer fresh, according to the patient’s age, in addition to the software being effective in automatic annotation of morphological and morphokinetic parameters. Validating an algorithm universally will improve embryonic selection. Trial registration number Not applicable


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Dong ◽  
Y Jia ◽  
Y Sha ◽  
L Diao ◽  
S Cai ◽  
...  

Abstract Study question To evaluate whether the pregnancy outcomes could be improved in implantation failure patients by endometrial receptivity array, endometrial immune profiling, or a combination of both. Summary answer There was no statistical difference between different endometrial receptivity evaluation and treatment in improving the clinical pregnancy rate. What is known already Both endometrial receptivity array and endometrial immune profiling were promised to improve the endometrial receptivity and subsequent clinical pregnancy. However, less is known about the efficiency between each other and whether the combination could further enhance their clinical value. Study design, size, duration Between November 2019 and September 2020, 143 women with a history of at least two or more consecutive implantation failure in IVF/ICSI treatment in Chengdu Xinan Gynecology Hospital were included. They were divided into three groups: ‘ERA + Immune Profiling’ (n = 70), ‘Immune Profiling’ (n = 41), and ‘ERA’ (n = 32). Participants/materials, setting, methods Inclusion criteria were age ≤ 38, with normal uterus and uterine cavity. All patients were suggested to evaluate endometrial receptivity by ERA test (Igenomix, Valencia, Spain) and endometrial immune profiling based on immunohistochemistry simultaneously, who would be free to choose each or both evaluation approaches. Personal Embryo Transfer and/or personal medical care were adopted according to evaluation results. Clinical pregnancy was confirmed by gestational sacs observed under ultrasonography. Main results and the role of chance The overall prevalence of displaced window of implantation (WOI) is 84.3%, and nearly 74.8% (83/111) patients were diagnosed as endometrial immune dysregulation. Clinical Pregnancy rate and embryonic implantation rate decreased in the ‘Immune Test’ groups, but without a statistical difference (P = 0.311, and 0.158, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that different endometrial receptivity evaluation and treatment was not associated the clinical pregnancy rate, suggesting the performance of different endometrial receptivity evaluation and treatment is similar in improving the clinical pregnancy rate. Neither the immune profiling (CD56, P = 0.591; FOXP3, P = 0.195; CD68, P = 0.820; CD163, P = 0.926; CD1a, P = 0.561; CD57, P = 0.221; CD8, P = 0.427; CD138 CE, P = 0.372) nor histologic endometrial dating defined by Noyes criteria (P = 0.374) were associated with ERA phases. Limitations, reasons for caution Although the selection of evaluation approaches was based on patients’ willingness, the variances of baseline characteristics and immune profiling existed in different groups. The immunological treatment efficacy based on immune profiling was not evaluated before embryo transfer. Wider implications of the findings: To our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the pregnancy outcomes after two typical endometrial receptivity evaluation approaches. The findings highlight the unsubstitutability for each assessment, indicating that both asynchronous and pathological WOI contribute to implantation failure. Trial registration number X2019004


2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tayfun Çok ◽  
Pınar Çağlar Aytaç ◽  
Erhan Şimşek ◽  
Bülent Haydardedeoğlu ◽  
Hakan Kalaycı ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document