Javascript must be enabled to continue!
P–392 Clinical outcomes of endometrium receptivity analysis(ERA) testing in patients with repeated IVF failures
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Study question
Is ERA testing different between RIF patients with control group?
Summary answer
In RIF patients, there were more chances of non-receptive endometrium. ERA testing may be helpful for the patients with repeated IVF failure. What is known already: The endometrium receptivity analysis testing might have the ability to detect the implantation window. In repeat implantation failure patients, detecting of precisely implantation window may have some benefits.
Study design, size, duration
This was a single-center retrospective observational study. Two hundred and forty-nine patients who underwent ERA testing following frozen-thawed embryo transfer in our center were including in this study between January 2019 and May 2020.
Participants/materials, setting, methods
181 patients having unexplained repeated IVF failure (RIF group, at least tow implantation failure) and 68 patients having no experience with embryo transfer (Control group) who underwent ERA testing were including in this study. Both of Patients having a receptive (R) ERA and having a non-receptive (NR) ERA underwent a personalized embryo transfer (pET) on ERA. ERA results and clinical outcomes compared between RIF group and control group were analyzed by Chi-square test.
Main results and the role of chance
The proportion of R/NR results were 33:35 for the RIF group and 118:63 for the Control group, demonstrating the displacement of the window of implantation in patients with RIF. Our results revealed an endometrial factor in 51% RIF patients, which was significantly greater than the Control group 34.8% (P = 0.02). Among the patients with NR ERA result, there are not significantly difference in clinical pregnancy rate in the RIF group compared with control group (57.1%. vs. 61.9%). The clinical pregnancy rate of the patients with receptive ERA result also is comparable in both group (70.3% vs. 66.7%).
Limitations, reasons for caution
This is a retrospective, single center study with limited case number. There were may some bias with ERA testing errors.
Wider implications of the findings: In RIF patients, there were more chances of non-receptive endometrium. ERA testing may be helpful for the patients with repeated IVF failure. Larger randomized studies are required to validate these results.
Trial registration number
18MMHISO70e
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Title: P–392 Clinical outcomes of endometrium receptivity analysis(ERA) testing in patients with repeated IVF failures
Description:
Abstract
Study question
Is ERA testing different between RIF patients with control group?
Summary answer
In RIF patients, there were more chances of non-receptive endometrium.
ERA testing may be helpful for the patients with repeated IVF failure.
What is known already: The endometrium receptivity analysis testing might have the ability to detect the implantation window.
In repeat implantation failure patients, detecting of precisely implantation window may have some benefits.
Study design, size, duration
This was a single-center retrospective observational study.
Two hundred and forty-nine patients who underwent ERA testing following frozen-thawed embryo transfer in our center were including in this study between January 2019 and May 2020.
Participants/materials, setting, methods
181 patients having unexplained repeated IVF failure (RIF group, at least tow implantation failure) and 68 patients having no experience with embryo transfer (Control group) who underwent ERA testing were including in this study.
Both of Patients having a receptive (R) ERA and having a non-receptive (NR) ERA underwent a personalized embryo transfer (pET) on ERA.
ERA results and clinical outcomes compared between RIF group and control group were analyzed by Chi-square test.
Main results and the role of chance
The proportion of R/NR results were 33:35 for the RIF group and 118:63 for the Control group, demonstrating the displacement of the window of implantation in patients with RIF.
Our results revealed an endometrial factor in 51% RIF patients, which was significantly greater than the Control group 34.
8% (P = 0.
02).
Among the patients with NR ERA result, there are not significantly difference in clinical pregnancy rate in the RIF group compared with control group (57.
1%.
vs.
61.
9%).
The clinical pregnancy rate of the patients with receptive ERA result also is comparable in both group (70.
3% vs.
66.
7%).
Limitations, reasons for caution
This is a retrospective, single center study with limited case number.
There were may some bias with ERA testing errors.
Wider implications of the findings: In RIF patients, there were more chances of non-receptive endometrium.
ERA testing may be helpful for the patients with repeated IVF failure.
Larger randomized studies are required to validate these results.
Trial registration number
18MMHISO70e.
Related Results
O-196 The impact of providing couples with their IVF-prognosis on the expectations and anxiety of women and men
O-196 The impact of providing couples with their IVF-prognosis on the expectations and anxiety of women and men
Abstract
Study question
What is the impact of providing couples with their IVF-prognosis on expectations and anxiety in women an...
Cost-effectiveness of medically assisted reproduction or expectant management for unexplained subfertility: when to start treatment?
Cost-effectiveness of medically assisted reproduction or expectant management for unexplained subfertility: when to start treatment?
AbstractSTUDY QUESTIONOver a time period of 3 years, which order of expectant management (EM), IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) and IVF is the most cost-effective for couples ...
O-089 The impact of sharing personalized IVF-prognoses: a randomized controlled trial
O-089 The impact of sharing personalized IVF-prognoses: a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Study question
Are women less likely to expect unrealistic live birth rates (i.e. 100% or > 2x their personalize...
O-056 Can we tailor ART to endometriosis patients?
O-056 Can we tailor ART to endometriosis patients?
Abstract
ART remains an effective treatment for endometriosis-associated infertility, although there is evidence that pregnancy rates are diminished in women with en...
A pilot and ex-vivo study of examination of endometrium tissue by catheter based optical coherence tomography
A pilot and ex-vivo study of examination of endometrium tissue by catheter based optical coherence tomography
Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to distinguish ex-vivo normal and abnormal endometrium tissue samples histologically by catheter based optical c...
P-426 Tissue-resident Pseudomonas aeruginosa impairs endometrial receptivity via T3SS-mediated STAT3 signaling inhibition
P-426 Tissue-resident Pseudomonas aeruginosa impairs endometrial receptivity via T3SS-mediated STAT3 signaling inhibition
Abstract
Study question
Does Pseudomonas aeruginosa impair endometrial receptivity by inhibiting STAT3 phosphorylation through i...
IVF for unexplained subfertility; whom should we treat?
IVF for unexplained subfertility; whom should we treat?
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION
Which couples with unexplained subfertility can expect increased chances of ongoing pregnancy with IVF c...
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Small Cell Lung Cancer and Tarlatamab: A Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials
Abstract
Introduction
Tarlatamab is a Delta-like ligand 3 (DLL3) -directed bispecific T-cell engager recently approved for use in patients with advanced small cell lung cancer (SCL...

