Advertisement

Endometriumdicke in der Sonographie – ein wichtiger Parameter der endometrialen Rezeptivität?

  • T. Osterholz-Zaleski
  • G. Griesinger
Originalien
  • 1 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

Regelhaft nutzen Reproduktionsmediziner die Sonographie, um die Endometrium(EM)-Dicke vor Embryotransfer (ET) zu beurteilen und diesen Parameter dann als prognostischen Faktor für das Implantationsverhalten zu verwenden. Allerdings sind das mütterliche Alter und die ovarielle Reaktion auf eine Stimulationstherapie mit rekombinantem follikelstimulierendem Hormon bei In-vitro-Fertilisation (IVF) und intrazytoplasmatischer Spermieninjektion (ICSI) prognostische Faktoren, die aber wiederum Einfluss auf die Entwicklung des Endometriums nehmen können. In einer Metaanalyse bot die EM-Dicke zwar eine begrenzte Möglichkeit, Frauen mit niedriger Chance auf Schwangerschaftseintritt herauszufiltern, allerdings sind Fälle unterhalb des Schwellenwerts der EM-Dicke von ≤7 mm selten. Schließlich ist die Assoziation zwischen einer niedrigen EM-Dicke und der Schwangerschaftswahrscheinlichkeit nicht stark, sodass ein Zyklusabbruch oder eine ET-Verschiebung nicht generell empfehlenswert ist. In einer Studie mit 11.000 IVF/ICSI-Zyklen wurde die EM-Dicke als unabhängiger Parameter zur Vorhersage von klinischer Schwangerschaft, Lebendgeburt, Spontanabort und Extrauteringravidität aufgezeigt. Allerdings ist auch hier die Effektstärke gering. Eine weitere Arbeit zeigt, dass zwar in der univariaten Analyse die Rate an fortlaufenden Schwangerschaften mit der Höhe des EM korreliert und dass die Chance, bei einem EM ≥ 9 mm zu konzipieren, statistisch größer ist als bei Werten von 3 bis 8 mm. Dennoch ist die Höhe des EM ein schwacher prognostischer Faktor, da der erwartete Anstieg der Lebendgeburtenrate bei Zunahme der EM-Dicke gering ist. Daher sollten bei einer IVF- oder ICSI-Therapie nicht allein aus der Höhe des EM weitere therapeutische Konsequenzen gezogen werden.

Schlüsselwörter

Embryotransfer Schwangerschaftsrate Geburtenrate Verfahren der assistierten Reproduktion Prognostische Faktoren 

Abkürzungen

ART

Assistierte Reproduktive Therapie

BMI

Body-Mass-Index

EM

Endometrium

ET

Embryotransfer

EUG

Extrauteringravidität

FSH

Follikelstimulierendes Hormon

ICSI

Intrazytoplasmatischer Spermieninjektion

IVF

In-vitro-Fertilisation

KI

Konfidenzintervall

LGR

Lebendgeburtenrate

OI

Ovulationsinduktion

OR

Odds Ratio

ROC-AUC

Receiver-operating-characteristic-Kurve

Endometrial thickness in sonography—an important parameter for endometrial receptiveness?

Abstract

Ultrasound is regularly used in reproductive medicine to assess endometrial thickness (EMT) before embryo transfer is carried out in order to use the EMT as a prognostic parameter for the likelihood of embryo implantation. Whether this really is reasonable is controversially discussed in the literature because factors, such as maternal age and ovarian response to ovarian stimulation by in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles are important confounders of the thickness of the endometrium. In a meta-analysis the EMT provided a limited possibility to filter out women with a low chance of becoming pregnant; however, cases below the threshold of an EMT ≤7 mm are rare. Ultimately, the association between a low EMT and the probability of pregnancy is not strong, so that termination of the cycle or postponement of embryo transfer is not generally recommended. In a unicenter retrospective study with 11,000 IVF/ICSI cycles, it was shown that EMT is an independent prognostic factor for clinical pregnancy, live birth and for the risk for spontaneous abortion and extrauterine gravidity; however, the effect size is also small. Another larger retrospective analysis showed that in univariate analysis the rate of ongoing pregnancies correlates with the thickness of the endometrium and that the chance for conceiving is statistically better with an EMT ≥ 9 mm than with values between 3 mm and 8 mm. Nevertheless, the EMT is only a poor prognostic factor because the expected increase in live birth rates with increasing EMT is low. For this reason further therapeutic consequences should not be deduced from the height of the EMT for IVF or ICSI therapy.

Keywords

Embryo transfer Pregnancy rate Birth rate Reproductive techniques, assisted Prognostic factors 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

T. Osterholz-Zaleski und G. Griesinger geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Alcazar JL et al (2006) Three-dimensional ultrasound assessement of endometrial receptivity: a review. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 9:56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker VL et al (2014) A randomized, controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety off aqueous subcutaneous progesterone with vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support of in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 29(10):2212–2220CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barker MA et al (2009) Follicular and luteal phase endometrial thickness and echogenic pattern and pregnancy outcome in oocyte donation cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 26(5):243–249CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bozdag G et al (2009) The impact of endometrial thickness and texture on intracytoplasmatic sperm injection outcome. J Reprod Med 5:303–311Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Broer SL et al (2013) IMPORT study group. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update 1:26–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bu Z et al (2015) The impact of endometrial thickness on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) administration of ongoing pregnancy rate in patients with different ovarian response. PLoS ONE 10(12):e145703CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dain L et al (2013) Thin endometrium in donor oocyte recipients: enigma or obstacle for implantation. Fertil Steril 100:1289–1295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dechaud H et al (2008) Optimal timing of ultrasonographic and Doppler evaluation of uterine receptivity to implantation. Reprod Biomed Online 3:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Geyter C et al (2000) Prospective evaluation in the ultrasound appearance of the endometrium in a cohort of 1186 women. Fertil Steril 1:106–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietterich C et al (2002) Increased endometrial thickness on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin injection does not adversely affect pregnancy or implantation rates following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 4:781–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El-Touky T et al (2008) The relationship between endometrial thickness and outcome of medicated frozen embryo replacement cycles. Fertil Steril 4:832–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Griesinger G, Trevisan S et al (2018) Endometrial thickness on the day of embryo transfer is a poor predictor of IVF treatment outcome. Hum Reprod Open.  https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hox031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jarvela IY et al (2005) Evaluation of endometrial receptivity during in-vitro-fertilization using three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 7:765–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kasius A, Smit J et al (2014) Endometrial thickness and pregnancy rates after IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 20(4):530–541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kovacs P et al (2003) The effect of endometrial thickness on IVF/ICSI outcome. Hum Reprod 11:2337–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuc P et al (2011) The dynamics of endometrial growth and the triple layer appearance in three different controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and their influence on IVF outcomes. Gynecol Endocrinol 11:867–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Laasch C, Puschek E (2004) Cumulatice embryo score, not endometrial thickness, is best for pregnancy prediction in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet 2:47–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lesny P et al (1999) Ultrasound evaluation oft the uterine zonal anatomy during in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 6:1593–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lintsen AM et al (2007) Predicting ongoing pregnancy rates chances after IVF and ICSI: a national prospective study. Hum Reprod 9:2455–2462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ng EH et al (2006) The role of endometrial and subendometrial blood flows measured by three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasound in the prediction of pregnancy during IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 1:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lockwood G et al (2014) Subcutaneous progesterone versus vaginal progesterone gel for luteal phase support in in-vitro-fertilization: a non-inferiority randomized controlled study. Fertil Steril 101(1):112–119CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oliveira JB et al (1997) Endometrial ultrasonography as a predictor of pregnancy in an in-vitro-fertilization programme after ovarian stimulation and gonadotropin-releasing hormons and gonadotropins. Hum Reprod 11:2515–2518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rashidi BH et al (2005) Relationships between pregnancy rates following in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmatic sperm injection and endometrial thickness and pattern. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2:179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ribeiro VC, Santos-Ribeiro S et al (2018) Should we continue to measure endometrial thickness in modern-day medicine? The effect on live birth rates and birth weight. Reprod Biomed Online 36(4):416–426CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schild RL et al (2001) Endometrium receptivity in an in-vitro-fertilization program as assessed by spiral aterial blood flow, endometrial thickness, endometrial volume, and uterine artery blood flow. Fertil Steril 2:361–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Senturk LM et al (2008) Thin endometrium in assisted reproductive technology. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 3:221–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Singh N et al (2011) Predictive value of endometrial thickness, pattern and sub-endometrial blood flows on the day of hcg by 2D-doppler in in-vitro-fertilization cycles: a prospective clinical study from a tertiary care unit. J Hum Reprod Sci 4:29–33CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wang L et al (2010) Role of endometrial blood flow assessement with color Doppler energy in predicting pregnancy outcome of IvF-ET cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 8:122CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yuan X et al (2016) Endometrial thickness as a predictor of pregnancy outcomes in 10787 fresh IVF-ICSI cycles. Reprod Biomed Online 33:197–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zhang T et al (2018) Endometrial thickness as a predictor oft he reproductive outcomes in fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(4):e9689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhao J et al (2012) The effect of endometrial thickness and pattern measured by ultrasonography on pregnancy outcomes during IVF-ET cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 10:100CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universitäres Kinderwunschzentrum Lübeck-ManhagenUniversitätsklinikum Schleswig-HolsteinLübeckDeutschland

Personalised recommendations