Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 47–50 | Cite as

Cumulative Embryo Score, Not Endometrial Thickness, Is Best for Pregnancy Prediction in IVF

  • Cassie Laasch
  • Elizabeth Puscheck


Purpose: To assess the combined effect of endometrial thickness and cumulative embryo score (CES) on pregnancy rates in assisted reproduction cycles compared to the effect of each of these factors considered individually.

Methods: Retrospective review of 2001 IVF pregnancy outcomes with respect to endometrial thickness and CES.

Results: One hundred fifty-five IVF cycles were reviewed. Endometrial thickness ranged from 6.4 to 22 mm. CES ranged from 16 to 194. CES scores above 50 correlated with improved pregnancy rates (31%) over those less than 50 (12.5%). CES scores above 150 were correlated with a further doubling in pregnancy rates (66%). Endometrial thickness alone or in combination with cumulative embryo score did not improve the prediction of pregnancy.

Conclusions: CES alone, and not combined with endometrial thickness, is a statistically significant factor in pregnancy rates that may be clinically useful in decisions regarding number of embryos transferred to ensure a better pregnancy rate.

Embryo quality endometrial thickness ICSI in vitro fertilization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Friedler S, Schenker JG, Herman A, Lewin A: The role of ultrasonography in the evaluation of endometrial receptivity following assisted reproductive treatments: A critical review. Hum Reprod Update 1996;2(4):323-335Google Scholar
  2. Glissant A, de Mouzon J, Frydman R: Ultrasound study of the endometrium during in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 1985;44:786-790Google Scholar
  3. Gonen Y, Casper RF, Jacobson W, Blankier J: Endometrial thickness and growth during ovarian stimulation: A possible predictor of implantation in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1989;52:446-450Google Scholar
  4. Bassil, S: Changes in endometrial thickness, width, length and pattern in predicting pregnancy outcome during ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;18(3):258-263Google Scholar
  5. Yuval Y, Lipitz S, Dor J, Achiron R: The relationships between endometrial thickness, and blood flow and pregnancy rates in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1999;14(4):1067-1071Google Scholar
  6. Dickey RP, Olar TT, Curole DN, Taylor SN, Rye PH: Endometrial pattern and thickness associatedwith pregnancy outcome after assisted reproduction technologies. Hum Reprod 1992;7:418-421Google Scholar
  7. Weissman A, Gotlieb L, Casper RF: The detrimental effect of increased endometrial thickness on implantation and pregnancy rates and outcome in an in vitro fertilization program. Fertil Steril 1999;71(1):147-149Google Scholar
  8. Khalifa E, Brzyski RG, Oehninger S, Acosta AA, Muasher SJ: Sonographic appearance of the endometrium: The predictive value for the outcome of in vitro fertilization in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 1992;7:677-680Google Scholar
  9. Sundstrom P: Establishment of a successful pregnancy following in-vitro fertilization with an endometrial thickness of no more than 4 mm. Hum Reprod 1998;13(6):1550-1552Google Scholar
  10. Desai NN, Goldstein J, Rowland DY, Goldfarb JM: Morphological evaluation of an embryo quality scoring system specific for day 3 embryos: A preliminary study. Hum Reprod 2000;15(10):2190-2196Google Scholar
  11. Terriou P, Sapin C, Giorgetti C, Hans E, Spach JL, Roulier R: Embryo score is a better predictor of pregnancy than the number of transferred embryos or female age. Fertil Steril 2001;75(3):525-531Google Scholar
  12. Schwartz LB, Chiu A, Courtney M, Krey L, Schmidt-Sarosi C: The embryo versus endometrium controversy revisited as it relates to predicting pregnancy outcome in in-vitro fertiliza-tion-embryo transfer cycles. Hum Reprod 1997;12(1):45-50Google Scholar
  13. Steer CV, Mills CL, Tan SL, Campbell S, Edwards RG: The cumulative embryo score: A predictive embryo scoring technique to select the optimal number of embryos to transfer in an in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer programme. Hum Reprod 1992;7(1):117-119Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cassie Laasch
    • 1
  • Elizabeth Puscheck
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologySt. John Health SystemDetroit
  2. 2.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyWayne State UniversityDetroitMichigan

Personalised recommendations