Skip to main content
Log in

Does the endometrial receptivity array really provide personalized embryo transfer?

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to determine the percentage of infertility patients who are diagnosed with a non-receptive endometrium according to the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) test and to examine whether adjusting the embryo transfer day according to the proposed shift in the window of implantation improves the pregnancy rate compared to non-ERA-tested patients.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cohort study, including 53 consecutive good prognosis patients (0–2 previous frozen embryo transfers) admitted to our IVF unit for a mock cycle prior to their frozen day-5 embryo (blastocyst) transfer cycle. The mock cycle included an endometrial biopsy for both the ERA test and histological assessment by the Noyes criteria (study group). The next cycle frozen embryo transfer (FET) in the study group was adjusted according to the ERA results. The control group consisted of patients who underwent FET cycles at our clinic during the same period, without performing the endometrial biopsy and ERA testing.

Results

During the study period, 503 patients (control group) underwent FET cycles without performing the ERA testing and 41 patients had FET following an ERA test. There were no between-group differences in patients’ age, number of previous transfers, endometrial thickness, number of transferred embryos, and ongoing pregnancy rates (35.2 vs. 39%, respectively, p = NS). Out of the 53 patients who performed the ERA test before their first or second FET, five endometrial samples (9.4%) were found to be post-receptive, 29 (54.7%) pre-receptive, and only 19 samples (35.8%) were receptive. Women in the study group with pre- or post-receptive endometrium on ERA testing, the appropriate adjustment in timing of FET according to the ERA test resulted in a 33.3% pregnancy rate, which is comparable to the 35.2% background ongoing pregnancy rate of the control group.

Conclusions

Performing the ERA test in a mock cycle prior to a FET does not seem to improve the ongoing pregnancy rate in good prognosis patients. Further large prospective studies are needed to elucidate the role of ERA testing in both good prognosis patients and in patients with recurrent implantation failure.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Thurin A, Hausken J, Hillensjö T, Jablonowska B, Pinborg A, Strandell A, et al. Elective single-embryo transfer versus double-embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(23):2392–402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Restrepo H, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Matched-cohort comparison of single-embryo transfers in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):389–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril. 2014;102(1):3–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(2):344–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ozgur K, et al. Perinatal outcomes after fresh versus vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer: retrospective analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104(4):899–907 e3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Paria BC, Song H, Dey SK. Implantation: molecular basis of embryo-uterine dialogue. Int J Dev Biol. 2001;45(3):597–605.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Edwards RG. Human implantation: the last barrier in assisted reproduction technologies? Reprod BioMed Online. 2006;13(6):887–904.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Noyes RW, Hertig AT, Rock J. Dating the endometrial biopsy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975;122(2):262–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Diaz-Gimeno P, et al. A genomic diagnostic tool for human endometrial receptivity based on the transcriptomic signature. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):50–60. 60 e1–15

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Diaz-Gimeno P, et al. The accuracy and reproducibility of the endometrial receptivity array is superior to histology as a diagnostic method for endometrial receptivity. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(2):508–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Díaz-Gimeno P, Gómez E, Fernández-Sánchez M, Carranza F, et al. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril. 2013;100(3):818–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jigal Haas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bassil, R., Casper, R., Samara, N. et al. Does the endometrial receptivity array really provide personalized embryo transfer?. J Assist Reprod Genet 35, 1301–1305 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1190-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-018-1190-9

Keywords

Navigation