Faculty Opinions recommendation of What is the prognosis for a live birth after unexplained recurrent implantation failure following IVF/ICSI?

Author(s):  
Steven L Young
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingying Sun ◽  
Yile Zhang ◽  
Xueshan Ma ◽  
Weitong Jia ◽  
Yingchun Su

BackgroundThe definition of recurrent implantation failure (RIF) differs clinically, one of the most controversial diagnostic criteria is the number of failed treatment cycles. We tried to investigate whether the two implantation failure could be included in the diagnostic criteria of RIF.MethodsA retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients (N=1518) aged under 40 years with two or more implantation failure, recruited from the Center for Reproductive Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2016 to June 2019.ResultsAfter adjusting for confounding factors by using binary logistic regression, the results showed that partial general information and: distribution of associated factors were significant differences such as maternal age (aOR=1.054, P=0.001), type of cycle (aOR=2.040, P<0.001), stage of embryos development (aOR=0.287, P<0.001), number of embryos transferred (aOR=0.184, P<0.001), female factor (tubal pathology) (aOR=0.432, P=0.031) and male factor (aOR=1.734, P=0.002) between the groups with two and three or more unexplained implantation failure. And further explored whether these differential factors had a significant negative impact on pregnancy outcome, the results showed that: for patients who had three unexplained implantation failure, in the fourth cycle of ET, the live birth rate decreased significantly with age (aOR=0.921, P<0.001), and the live birth rate of blastocyst transfer was significantly higher than that of cleavage embryo transfer (aOR=1.826, P=0.007). At their first assisted pregnancy treatment after the diagnosis of RIF according to these two different definitions, there were no significant difference in the biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate and abortion rate (P>0.05), but the live birth rate (35.64% vs 42.95%, P=0.004) was significantly different. According to the definition of ‘two or more failed treatment cycles’, the live birth rate of the first ET treatment after RIF diagnosis was significantly lower than that of patients according to the definition of ‘three or more failed treatment cycles’.ConclusionFor patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure, two implantation failure cannot be included in the diagnostic criteria of RIF. This study supports the generally accepted definition of three or more failed treatment cycles for RIF.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 2044-2052 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y E M Koot ◽  
M Hviid Saxtorph ◽  
M Goddijn ◽  
S de Bever ◽  
M J C Eijkemans ◽  
...  

Abstract STUDY QUESTION What is the cumulative incidence of live birth and mean time to pregnancy (by conception after IVF/ICSI or natural conception) in women experiencing unexplained recurrent implantation failure (RIF) following IVF/ICSI treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER In 118 women who had experienced RIF, the reported cumulative incidence of live birth during a maximum of 5.5 years follow-up period was 49%, with a calculated median time to pregnancy leading to live birth of 9 months after diagnosis of RIF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Current definitions of RIF include failure to achieve a pregnancy following IVF/ICSI and undergoing three or more fresh embryo transfer procedures of one or two high quality embryos or more than 10 embryos transferred in fresh or frozen cycles. The causes and optimal management of this distressing condition remain uncertain and a range of empirical and often expensive adjuvant therapies is often advocated. Little information is available regarding the long-term prognosis for achieving a pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Two hundred and twenty-three women under 39 years of age who had experienced RIF without a known cause after IVF/ICSI treatment in two tertiary referral university hospitals between January 2008 and December 2012 were invited to participate in this retrospective cohort follow up study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS All eligible women were sent a letter requesting their consent to the anonymous use of their medical file data and were asked to complete a questionnaire enquiring about treatments and pregnancies subsequent to experiencing RIF. Medical files and questionnaires were examined and results were analysed to determine the subsequent cumulative incidence of live birth and time to pregnancy within a maximum 5.5 year follow-up period using Kaplan Meier analysis. Clinical predictors for achieving a live birth were investigated using a Cox hazard model. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE One hundred and twenty-seven women responded (57%) and data from 118 women (53%) were available for analysis. During the maximum 5.5 year follow up period the overall cumulative incidence of live birth was 49% (95% CI 39–59%). Among women who gave birth, the calculated median time to pregnancy was 9 months after experiencing RIF, where 18% arose from natural conceptions. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Since only 57% of the eligible study cohort completed the questionnaire, the risk of response bias limits the applicability of the study findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This study reports a favorable overall prognosis for achieving live birth in women who have previously experienced RIF, especially in those who continue with further IVF/ICSI treatments. However since 51% did not achieve a live birth during the follow-up period, there is a need to distinguish those most likely to benefit from further treatment. In this study, no clinical factors were found to be predictive of those achieving a subsequent live birth. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by the University Medical Center Utrecht, in Utrecht and the Academic Medical Centre, in Amsterdam. NSM has received consultancy and speaking fees and research funding from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, Abbott, IBSA, Gedion Richter, and Clearblue. During the most recent 5-year period BCJMF has received fees or grant support from the following organizations (in alphabetic order); Actavis/Watson/Uteron, Controversies in Obstetrics & Gynecology (COGI), Dutch Heart Foundation, Dutch Medical Research Counsel (ZonMW), Euroscreen/Ogeda, Ferring, London Womens Clinic (LWC), Merck Serono, Myovant, Netherland Genomic Initiative (NGI), OvaScience, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem/Gedeon Richter/Finox, Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO), Roche, Teva, World Health Organisation (WHO). None of the authors have disclosures to make in relation to this manuscript.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhenhong Shuai ◽  
Xuemei Li ◽  
Xuelian Tang ◽  
Fang Lian ◽  
Zhengao Sun

Objective: To evaluate the effect of transcutaneous electrical acupuncture stimulation (TEAS) on pregnancy outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Methods: A total of 122 women with RIF undergoing fresh embryo transfer cycle IVF were randomly allocated to a TEAS or mock TEAS (MTEAS) group. Gonadotrophin therapy using a long protocol was provided in both groups. TEAS consisted of 30 min of stimulation (9–25 mA, 2 Hz) at SP6, CV3, CV4 and Zigong from day 5 of the ovarian stimulation cycle once every other day until the day of embryo transfer. The patients in the control group received MTEAS. Implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were compared. Results: In the TEAS group, the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate (24.3%, 32.8% and 27.9%, respectively) were significantly higher than in the MTEAS group (12.1%, 16.4% and 13.1%, respectively). Conclusions: TEAS significantly improves the clinical outcomes of subsequent IVF cycles among women who have experienced RIF. Trial registration number: ChiCTR-TRC-14004730.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document