Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pregnancy rate in intrauterine insemination, is uterine biophysical profile of predictive value? A prospective study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Ultrasound Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed at evaluating the value of uterine biophysical profile (UBP) scoring to predict the pregnancy rate after IUI.

Methods

This prospective study was carried out on 85 women who were referred to our tertiary teaching center with infertility of male factor or unknown etiology infertility in 2018. To measure the uterine biophysical criteria, transvaginal ultrasonography (TVS) was performed on the day of beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (B-hCG) injection, and the results were evaluated based on positive B-hCG.

Results

85 patients were included with a mean age of 30 years; of those 12 (14.1%) were able to conceive. UBP (p = 0.151) and it’s parameters (including endometrial thickness, number of endometrial layers, myometrial echogenicity, uterine artery pulsatility index, myometrial blood flow internal to arcuate vessels, endometrial blood flow in the third zone of endometrium, myometrial contraction frequency, and ovarian follicle (OF) size [p = 0.05, 0.89, 0.59, 0.79, 1, 1, 0.59, and 0.77, respectively]) were not significantly associated with pregnancy rate. 91.7% of the cases with positive pregnancy test results, had a UBP score of > 13; however, UBP score was not meaningfully associated with IUI treatment success rate (p = 0.15).

Conclusions

UBP scoring system seems to need more data for external validation, or it might require modifications before implementation, as it may cause false reassurance.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ART:

Assisted Reproductive Technology

B-hCG:

Beta-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin

EBF:

Endometrial Blood Flow

EMP:

Endometrial Pattern

EMT:

Endometrial Thickness

IUI:

Intrauterine Insemination

MBF:

Myometrial Blood Flow

MCF:

Myometrial Contraction Frequency

OF:

Ovarian Follicle

PI:

Pulsatility Index

TVS:

Transvaginal Ultrasonography

UA-PI:

Pulsatility Index of Uterine Artery

UBP:

Uterine Biophysical Profile

References

  1. Boivin J, Bunting L, Collins JA, Nygren KG (2007) International estimates of infertility prevalence and treatment-seeking: potential need and demand for infertility medical care. Hum Reprod 22(6):1506–1512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lindsay TJ, Vitrikas K (2015) Evaluation and treatment of infertility. Am Fam Phys 91(5):308–314

    Google Scholar 

  3. Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF, King RB, Trumble AC, Sundaram R et al (2013) Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil Steril 99(5):1324–2311

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Cramer DW, Walker AM, Schiff I (1979) Statistical methods in evaluating the outcome of infertility therapy. Fertil Steril 32(1):80–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Vahidi S, Ardalan A, Mohammad K (2009) Prevalence of primary infertility in the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2004–2005. Asia Pac J Public Health 21(3):287–293

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Evers JL (2002) Female subfertility. The Lancet 360(9327):151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jumayev I, Harun-Or-Rashid M, Rustamov O, Zakirova N, Kasuya H, Sakamoto J (2012) Social correlates of female infertility in Uzbekistan. Nagoya J Med Sci 74(3–4):273

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gnoth C, Maxrath B, Skonieczny T, Friol K, Godehardt E, Tigges J (2011) Final ART success rates: a 10 years survey. Hum Reprod 26(8):2239–2246

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Yaman C, Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Pölz W, Tews G (2000) Role of three-dimensional ultrasonographic measurement of endometrium volume as a predictor of pregnancy outcome in an IVF-ET program: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril 74(4):797–801

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Direkvand-Moghadam A, Sayehmiri K, Delpisheh A (2014) The global trend of infertility: an original review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol Res 1(1):35–43

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ajossa S, Melis GB, Cianci A, Coccia ME, Fulghesu AM, Giuffrida G et al (1997) An open multicenter study to compare the efficacy of intraperitoneal insemination and intrauterine insemination following multiple follicular development as treatment for unexplained infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet 14(1):15–20

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Armstrong S, Akande V (2013) What is the best treatment option for infertile women aged 40 and over? J Assist Reprod Genet 30(5):667–671

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kamali M, Kashfi F, Baghestani A, Kashani H, Tavajohi S, Amirchaghmaghi E (2011) The epidemiologic survey on causes of infertility in patients referred to Royan Institute. Med J Tabriz Univ Med Sci 28(1):103–105

    Google Scholar 

  14. Razzak A, Wais S (2002) The infertile couple: a cohort study in Duhok, Iraq. EMHJ-Eastern Mediterr Health Journal 8(2–3):234–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ivanovski M (2012) The role of ultrasound in the evaluation of endometrial receptivity following assisted reproductive treatments. In: In vitro fertilization–innovative clinical and laboratory aspects. https://doi.org/10.5772/38592

  16. Applebaum M (1995) The uterine biophysical profile. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 5(1):67–68

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Navinchandra RN, Shankar ST, Kamath MG, Devdas SP, Vineela P (2016) Relationship between uterine scoring system for reproduction and pregnancy in controlled ovarian stimulation-intrauterine insemination cycles. IVF Lite 3(3):115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vichinsartvichai P, Siriphadung S, Traipak K, Promrungrueng P, Manolertthewan C, Ratchanon S (2015) The influence of women age and successfulness of intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. J Med Assoc Thai 98(9):833–838

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zaidi J, Campbell S, Pittrof R, Tan S (1995) Endometrial thickness, morphology, vascular penetration and velocimetry in predicting implantation in an in vitro fertilization program. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 6(3):191–198

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Malhotra N, Malhotra J, Malhotra N, Rao J, Mishra N, Kurjak A et al (2010) Endometrial receptivity and scoring for prediction of implantation and newer markers. Donald Sch Ultra-sound Obstet Gynecol 4:439–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sahakyan M, Harlow BL, Hornstein MD (1999) Influence of age, diagnosis, and cycle number on pregnancy rates with gonadotropin-induced controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 72(3):500–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gupta P, Chandra S, Kaushik A, Jain PK (2014) Evaluation of uterine biophysical profile and to assess its role in predicting conception among unexplained primary infertility patients. Indian J Community Health 26(4):401–405

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thakur M, Dhaliwal L, Suri V, Gainder S (2010) Evaluation of uterine biophysical profile, an ultrasonographic uterine scoring system, in unexplained infertility and to assess its prognostic value in predicting pregnancy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 17(6):S48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Khan MS, Shaikh A, Ratnani R (2016) Ultrasonography and Doppler study to predict uterine receptivity in infertile patients undergoing embryo transfer. J Obstet Gynecol India 66(1):377–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Masrour MJ, Shafaie A, Yoonesi L, Aerabsheibani H, Masrour SJ (2016) Evaluating endometrial thickness and vascular ultrasound pattern and pregnancy outcomes inintrauterine insemination cycle. Asian JPharm Res Health Care 8(1):24–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Tsai H-D, Chang C-C, Hsieh Y-Y, Lee C-C, Lo H-Y (2000) Artificial insemination. Role of endometrial thickness and pattern, of vascular impedance of the spiral and uterine arteries, and of the dominant follicle. J Reprod Med 45(3):195–200

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Weiss N, Van Vliet M, Limpens J, Hompes P, Lambalk C, Mochtar M et al (2017) Endometrial thickness in women undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation. How thick is too thin? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 32(5):1009–1018

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kumari M, Singh K, Bharti G, Kumar V, Umakant P, Suman SK (2017) Biophysical Scoring of the Endometrium and Intrauterine Insemination Outcome in the Patient with Infertility. Int J Sci Study 5(2):120–124

    Google Scholar 

  29. Liu Y, Xiang YY, Chan C (2019) The association between endometrial thickness and pregnancy outcome in gonadotropin-stimulated intrauterine insemination cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 17(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kim A, Lee JY, Ji YI, Lee HH, Lee ES, Kim HY et al (2015) Do endometrial movements affect the achievement of pregnancy during intrauterine insemination? Int J Fertil Steril 8(4):399

    PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Prasad S, Goyal R, Kumar Y, Nayar P, Hajela S, Kumaran A et al (2017) The relationship between uterine artery two-dimensional color Doppler measurement and pregnancy outcome: a prospective observational study. J Reprod Infertil 18(2):251

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Swierkowski-Blanchard N, Boitrelle F, Alter L, Selva J, Quibel T, Torre A (2017) Uterine contractility and elastography as prognostic factors for pregnancy after intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril 107(4):961–8. e3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Clinical Research Development Center of Imam Reza Hospital for consulting services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Clinical Research Development Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Nazanin Farshchian, Parisa Bahrami Kamangar & Hassan Lorestani

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinical Research Development Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran

    Taravat Fakheri

  3. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti Hospital, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Qotb Ravandi Blvd., 8715981151, Kashan, Iran

    Javid Azadbakht

Authors
  1. Nazanin Farshchian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Taravat Fakheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Parisa Bahrami Kamangar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hassan Lorestani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Javid Azadbakht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Javid Azadbakht.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This work has been approved by the Kermanshah University of Medical Science (KUMS) Ethical Committee Board. Informed consents were obtained from all participants.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

NF, TF and JA provided direction and guidance throughout the preparation of this manuscript. NF, PBK and ML collected the data. NF, PBK and JA analyzed and interpreted data and drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript and made significant revisions and approved the final version of the manuscript draft.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farshchian, N., Fakheri, T., Bahrami Kamangar, P. et al. Pregnancy rate in intrauterine insemination, is uterine biophysical profile of predictive value? A prospective study. J Ultrasound 25, 949–955 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00670-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00670-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation