Histopathological profile of women who had previously failed in-vitro fertilization and the association to the outcome in the subsequent in-vitro fertilization cycle

Objective@#To evaluate the endometrial histopathological profile of patients undergoing curettage and the association of the histopathological profile with the pregnancy outcome during the subsequent in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. @*Methods@#In this retrospective cohort study, a total of 248 women with at least one failed attempt of IVF and who underwent curettage and a subsequent IVF were included. Demographic data, endometrial histopathological records, stimulation information, and pregnancy outcomes were collected and analyzed. @*Results@#The histopathological analysis of endometrial tissues showed that 130 women (52.4%) had endometrial pathologies. Of these women, 103 (41.5%) had endometrial polyps, 22 (8.9%) had chronic endometritis, and five (2.0%) had both polyps and endometritis. No statistical difference was observed between the normal histopathology group and the abnormal histopathology group in the outcome of the subsequent IVF cycle. Subgroup analyses were performed to further characterize and compare women with normal histopathology and women with endometrial polyps (polyp subgroup) or chronic endometritis (endometritis subgroup). No statistical differences were found among the three groups in the rates of pregnancy (44.1% vs. 49.5% vs. 45.5%, P=0.72), biochemical pregnancy loss (13.5% vs. 15.7% vs. 20.0%, P=0.86), clinical pregnancy loss (25.0% vs. 31.4% vs. 30.0%, P=0.77), and live birth (27.1% vs. 26.2% vs. 22.7%, P=0.91) during the subsequent IVF cycle. @*Conclusion@#Women with previously failed IVF and abnormal endometrial histopathology treated with curettage had the same outcome in the subsequent IVF cycle as women with normal endometrial histopathology.

Inconsistencies between endometrial receptivity assay and Adhesio-RT test for the window of implantation in women with repetitive failed donor oocyte embryo transfers

Two commercially available second-generation endometrial receptivity assays using microarray analysis or next-generation sequencing are available in the market: endometrial receptivity assay (ERA) (Igenomix Laboratories) and Adhesio RT (OVO laboratories, Montreal, Canada). Little is known about how the results of these tests compare. We present a case of a subject with repetitive failed donor oocyte embryo transfer, who underwent evaluation of endometrial receptivity using both the Adhesio and ERA tests. These two tests did not provide consistent results, with ERA suggesting receptivity on day 5 of progesterone treatment and Adhesio suggesting receptivity on the eighth day. An ERA test subsequently performed on the eighth day of progesterone treatment was suggestive of post-receptive endometrium during the same time frame that Adhesio was suggestive of receptive endometrium. In conclusion, it is important to note that these two tests may not provide consistent results in at least some subjects. Therefore, intertest validity studies are recommended.

Inconsistencies between endometrial receptivity assay and Adhesio-RT test for the window of implantation in women with repetitive failed donor oocyte embryo transfers

Two commercially available second-generation endometrial receptivity assays using microarray analysis or next-generation sequencing are available in the market: endometrial receptivity assay (ERA) (Igenomix Laboratories) and Adhesio RT (OVO laboratories, Montreal, Canada). Little is known about how the results of these tests compare. We present a case of a subject with repetitive failed donor oocyte embryo transfer, who underwent evaluation of endometrial receptivity using both the Adhesio and ERA tests. These two tests did not provide consistent results, with ERA suggesting receptivity on day 5 of progesterone treatment and Adhesio suggesting receptivity on the eighth day. An ERA test subsequently performed on the eighth day of progesterone treatment was suggestive of post-receptive endometrium during the same time frame that Adhesio was suggestive of receptive endometrium. In conclusion, it is important to note that these two tests may not provide consistent results in at least some subjects. Therefore, intertest validity studies are recommended.

Oocyte Donation From Donor Older Than 35 Years. Is It Worth Trying?

INTRODUCTION: Due to several reasons, in some countries commercial oocyte donation is not possible. Accordingly, patients should find their own donors who may be over 35 years. The aim of this study was to compare the results of oocyte donation from donors <35 years (young donors) and donors ≥35 years old (older donors). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single academic reproductive center. We compared the results of oocyte donation from donors <35 years (345 cycles) and from donor ≥35 years old (83 cycles). We also performed subgroup analysis for single embryo transfer (SET) and fresh and frozen embryo transfers. RESULTS: Recipient demographic characteristics of the 2 groups were comparable. The age of the donors was 29.8 ± 3.9 years in the young donor group and 37.6 ± 2.1 years in the older donor group ( P < .0001). Pregnancy and implantation rates in the recipients from young donor group were statistically significantly higher than those from the older donor group (50.7% and 40.9% vs 38.3% and 23%; P = .04, P < .001). Cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates were significantly higher in the young donor group compared to the older donor group (86.1% vs 57.4% P < .0001 and 52.2% vs 33.3%, P = .02, respectively). Subgroup analysis showed comparable pregnancy and live birth rates for SET cycles (45.5% vs 40.4% and 25.0% vs 21.2%, respectively) and fresh cycles (54.7% vs 42.6% and 35.8% vs 29.6%, respectively). CONCLUSION: In nonanonymous oocyte donation programs, donation from older donors with good ovarian reserve is an acceptable approach when young donor is not available.