Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Endometrial Receptivity Analysis on Pregnancy Outcomes In Patients Undergoing Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Review
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 22 April 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

To analyze the influence of endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) on embryo transfer (ET) results in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and BioMed Central databases were searched from inception up to December 2022 for studies comparing pregnancy outcomes in patients undergoing personalized embryo transfer (pET) by ERA versus standard ET. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random effects model. We identified twelve studies, including 14,224 patients. No differences were observed between patients undergoing ERA test and those not undergoing ERA test prior to ET in terms of live birth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63–1.58, I2 = 92.7%), clinical pregnancy (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.90–1.61, I2 = 86.5%), biochemical pregnancy (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46–1.49, I2 = 87%), positive pregnancy test (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80–1.22, I2 = 0%), miscarriage (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.62–1.34, I2 = 67.1%), and implantation rate (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.44–3.14, I2 = 93.2%). pET with ERA is not associated with any significant differences in pregnancy outcomes as compared to standard ET protocols. Therefore, the utility of ERA in patients undergoing IVF should be revisited.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  1. Esfandiari N, Gubista A. Mouse embryo assay for human in vitro fertilization quality control: a fresh look. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:1123–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Kragh MF, Karstoft H. Embryo selection with artificial intelligence: how to evaluate and compare methods? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:1675–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Nguyen EB, Jacobs EA, Summers KM, Sparks AE, Van Voorhis BJ, Klenov VE, Duran EH. Embryo blastulation and quality between days 5 and 6 of extended embryo culture. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:2193–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Rubio C, Bellver J, Rodrigo L, Castillón G, Guillén A, Vidal C, Giles J, Ferrando M, Cabanillas S, Remohí J, Pellicer A, Simón C. In vitro fertilization with preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidies in advanced maternal age: a randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1122–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Díaz-Gimeno P, Gómez E, Fernández-Sánchez M, Carranza F, Carrera J, Vilella F, Pellicer A, Simón C. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:818–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Noyes RW, Hertig AT, Rock J. Dating the endometrial biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975;122:262–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Díaz-Gimeno P, Horcajadas JA, Martínez-Conejero JA, Esteban FJ, Alamá P, Pellicer A, Simón C. A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:50–60.e15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339

  9. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR, Chan AW, Churchill R, Deeks JJ, Hróbjartsson A, Kirkham J, Jüni P, Loke YK, Pigott TD, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355

  10. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1:97–111.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ Br Med J. 2003;327:557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cozzolino M, Diáz-Gimeno P, Pellicer A, Garrido N. Use of the endometrial receptivity array to guide personalized embryo transfer after a failed transfer attempt was associated with a lower cumulative and per transfer live birth rate during donor and autologous cycles. Fertil Steril. 2022;118:724–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Simón C, Gómez C, Cabanillas S, Vladimirov I, Castillón G, Giles J, Boynukalin K, Findikli N, Bahçeci M, Ortega I, Vidal C, Funabiki M, Izquierdo A, López L, Portela S, Frantz N, Kulmann M, Taguchi S, Labarta E, et al. A 5-year multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing personalized, frozen and fresh blastocyst transfer in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41:402–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bassil R, Casper R, Samara N, Hsieh TB, Barzilay E, Orvieto R, Haas J. Does the endometrial receptivity array really provide personalized embryo transfer? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1301–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Bergin K, Eliner Y, Duvall DW, Roger S, Elguero S, Penzias AS, Sakkas D, Vaughan DA. The use of propensity score matching to assess the benefit of the endometrial receptivity analysis in frozen embryo transfers. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:396–403.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cozzolino M, Diaz-Gimeno P, Pellicer A, Garrido N. Evaluation of the endometrial receptivity assay and the preimplantation genetic test for aneuploidy in overcoming recurrent implantation failure. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:2989–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Doyle N, Combs JC, Jahandideh S, Wilkinson V, Devine K, O’Brien JE. Live birth after transfer of a single euploid vitrified-warmed blastocyst according to standard timing vs. timing as recommended by endometrial receptivity analysis. Fertil Steril. 2022;118:314–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Doyle N, Jahandideh S, Hill MJ, Widra EA, Levy M, Devine K. Effect of timing by endometrial receptivity testing vs standard timing of frozen embryo transfer on live birth in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization A Randomized Clinical. Trial. 2022;22031:2117–25.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fodina V, Dudorova A, Erenpreiss J. Evaluation of embryo aneuploidy (PGT-A) and endometrial receptivity (ERA) testing in patients with recurrent implantation failure in ICSI cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2021;37:17–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jia Y, Sha Y, Qiu Z, Guo Y, Tan A, Huang Y, Zhong Y, Dong Y, Ye H. Comparison of the effectiveness of endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) to guide personalized embryo transfer with conventional frozen embryo transfer in 281 Chinese women with recurrent implantation failure. Med Sci Monit. 2022;28:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Neves AR, Devesa M, Martínez F, Garcia-Martinez S, Rodriguez I, Polyzos NP, Coroleu B. What is the clinical impact of the endometrial receptivity array in PGT-A and oocyte donation cycles? Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2020;75:36–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ohara Y, Matsubayashi H, Suzuki Y, Takaya Y, Yamaguchi K, Doshida M, Takeuchi T, Ishikawa T, Handa M, Miyake T, Takiuchi T, Kimura T. Clinical relevance of a newly developed endometrial receptivity test for patients with recurrent implantation failure in Japan. Reprod Med Biol. 2022;21:1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Riestenberg C, Kroener L, Quinn M, Ching K, Ambartsumyan G. Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate. Fertil Steril. 2021;115:1001–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Altmäe S, Koel M, Võsa U, Adler P, Suhorutšenko M, Laisk-Podar T, Kukushkina V, Saare M, Velthut-Meikas A, Krjutškov K, Aghajanova L, Lalitkumar PG, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Giudice L, Simón C, Salumets A. Meta-signature of human endometrial receptivity: a meta-analysis and validation study of transcriptomic biomarkers. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Neykova K, Tosto V, Giardina I, Tsibizova V, Vakrilov G. Endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcome. J Matern Neonatal Med. 2022;35:2591–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cheng X, Zhang Y, Ma J, Wang S, Ma R, Ge X, Zhao W, Xue T, Chen L, Yao B. NLRP3 promotes endometrial receptivity by inducing epithelial-mesenchymal transition of the endometrial epithelium. Mol Hum Reprod. 2021;27:1–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Moreno I, Codoñer FM, Vilella F, Valbuena D, Martinez-Blanch JF, Jimenez-Almazán J, Alonso R, Alamá P, Remohí J, Pellicer A, Ramon D, Simon C. Evidence that the endometrial microbiota has an effect on implantation success or failure. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:684–703.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Saxtorph MH, Hallager T, Persson G, Petersen KB, Eriksen JO, Larsen LG, Hviid TV, Macklon N. Assessing endometrial receptivity after recurrent implantation failure: a prospective controlled cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41:998–1006.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tan J, Kan A, Hitkari J, Taylor B, Tallon N, Warraich G, Yuzpe A, Nakhuda G. The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:683–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Eisman LE, Pisarska MD, Wertheimer S, Chan JL, Akopians AL, Surrey MW, Danzer HC, Ghadir S, Chang WY, Alexander CJ, Wang ET. Clinical utility of the endometrial receptivity analysis in women with prior failed transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2021;38:645–50.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Dahan MH, Tan SL. Variations in the endometrial receptivity assay (ERA) may actually represent test error. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1923–4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Clemente-Ciscar M, Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Jimenez-Almazan J, Bahceci M, Banker M, Vladimirov I, Mackens S, Miller C, Valbuena D, Simon C. Endometrial receptivity analysis (ERA) using a next generation sequencing (NGS) predictor improves reproductive outcome in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) patients when compared to ERA arrays. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:8–8.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Smith DR, Quinlan AR, Peckham HE, Makowsky K, Tao W, Woolf B, Shen L, Donahue WF, Tusneem N, Stromberg MP, Stewart DA, Zhang L, Ranade SS, Warner JB, Lee CC, Coleman BE, Zhang Z, McLaughlin SF, Malek JA, et al. Rapid whole-genome mutational profiling using next-generation sequencing technologies. Genome Res. 2008;18:1638.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Shendure J, Ji H. Next-generation DNA sequencing. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26:1135–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Williams PM, Gaddey HL. Endometrial biopsy: tips and pitfalls. Am Fam Physician. 2020;101:551–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Arian SE, Hessami K, Khatibi A, To AK, Shamshirsaz AA, Gibbons W. Endometrial receptivity array before frozen embryo transfer cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2022.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Reproduction, University and Polytechnic Hospital La Fe, Avenida Fernando Abril Martorell 106, Valencia, Spain

    Irene Zolfaroli, Ana Monzó Miralles, Juan José Hidalgo-Mora, Beatriz Marcos Puig & José María Rubio Rubio

Authors
  1. Irene Zolfaroli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ana Monzó Miralles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan José Hidalgo-Mora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Beatriz Marcos Puig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. José María Rubio Rubio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ana Monzó Miralles.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: In this article the title was incorrectly given as 'Outcomes in patients undergoing embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta‑analysis' but should have been 'Impact of Endometrial Receptivity Analysis on Pregnancy Outcomes In Patients Undergoing Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis'.

Supplementary information

ESM 1

(DOCX 190 kb)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zolfaroli, I., Monzó Miralles, A., Hidalgo-Mora, J.J. et al. Impact of Endometrial Receptivity Analysis on Pregnancy Outcomes In Patients Undergoing Embryo Transfer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 40, 985–994 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02791-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-023-02791-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation