Clinical utility of the endometrial receptivity analysis in women with prior failed transfers.

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of the endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) in women with prior failed embryo transfers (ET). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients who underwent an ERA test with a subsequent frozen ET. Women were classified based on their indication for an ERA test: (1) ≥ 1 prior failed ET (cases), or (2) as a prophylactic measure (controls). A subset analysis of women with ≥ 3 prior failed transfers was performed. Pregnancy outcomes of the subsequent cycle were examined, including conception, clinical pregnancy, and ongoing pregnancy/live birth. RESULTS: A total of 222 women were included, 131 (59%) women with ≥ 1 prior failed ET and 91 (41%) controls. Among the 131 women with ≥ 1 prior failed ET, 20 women (9%) had ≥ 3 prior failed ETs. The proportion of non-receptive ERA tests in the three groups were the following: 45% (≥ 1 prior failed ET), 40% (≥ 3 prior failed ETs), and 52% (controls). The results did not differ between cases and controls. The pregnancy outcomes did not differ between women with ≥ 1 prior failed ET and controls. In women with ≥ 3 prior failed ETs, there was a lower ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate (28% vs 54%, P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Women with ≥ 1 prior failed ET and ≥ 3 prior failed ETs had a similar prevalence of non-receptive endometrium compared to controls. Women with ≥ 3 prior failed ETs had a lower ongoing pregnancy/live birth rate despite a personalized FET, suggesting that there are additional factors in implantation failure beyond an adjustment in progesterone exposure.

Chromosome abnormalities in embryos derived from microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration and testicular sperm extraction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the patterns of chromosome abnormalities in embryos derived from intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (MESA) or testicular sperm extraction (TESE) in comparison to embryos that are derived from naturally ejaculated (EJAC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Male partners with azoospermia who required MESA or TESE for ICSI were studied for chromosomal abnormalities. The ICSI patients with EJAC sperm served as the control group. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was performed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Chromosome abnormalities were categorized as polyploidy, haploidy, aneuploidy, and complex abnormality (which involves more than two chromosomes). Fertilization, embryo development, and patterns of chromosome abnormalities were accessed and evaluated. RESULTS: There was no difference between the MESA, TESE, and EJAC patient groups in the rates of fertilization and pregnancy and the percentages of euploid embryos. In all three groups, less than one-half of the embryos for each group were normal (41 ± 31%, 48 ± 38%, and 48 ± 31% in MESA, TESA, and EJAC, respectively). Complex chromosomal abnormality was significantly more frequent in the MESA group than in the EJAC group (48.3% vs. 26.5%, respectively; p < 0.001). Furthermore, the overall pattern of chromosomal aneuploidy was similar among all three studied groups. CONCLUSION: We suggest that MESA and TESE, followed by ICSI and PGD, appear to be acceptable approaches for treating men with severe spermatogenesis impairment.

Is gender selection an appropriate use of medical resources?

Gender selection by PGD is an appropriate use of medical resources. Children borne through PGD for gender determination would be welcome and would come into a couple's life at a planned, opportune time. If the practice were made more available through insurance coverage, the size and makeup of families could become a matter of choice rather than chance for couples favoring this approach.