Efficacy of the endometrial receptivity array for repeated implantation failure in Japan: A retrospective, two‐centers study

• Published in: Reproductive medicine and biology Vol. 16; no. 3; pp. 290 - 296
• Main Authors: Hashimoto, Tomoko, Koizumi, Masae, Doshida, Masakazu, Toya, Mayumi, Sagara, Eri, Oka, Nao, Nakajo, Yukiko, Aono, Nobuya, Igarashi, Hideki, Kyono, Koichi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Japan John Wiley & Sons, Inc 01-07-2017; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: Customization; Dating; Embryo transfer; Embryos; endometrial receptivity array; Endometrium; histological dating; Histology; Implantation; implantation window; In vitro fertilization; Medical research; Original; Patients; personalized embryo transfer; Pets; Pregnancy; recurrent implantation failure; Studies; Thyroid gland; Ultrasonic imaging; Japan; recurrent implantation failure; histological dating; implantation window; personalized embryo transfer; endometrial receptivity array
• ISSN: 1445-5781; 1447-0578
• DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12041

Aim
This study aimed to assess the efficacy of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) as a diagnostic tool and the impact of personalized embryo transfer (pET) for the treatment of patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in Japan.
Methods
Fifty patients with a history of RIF with frozen‐thawed blastocyst transfers were recruited from July, 2015 to April, 2016. Endometrial sampling for the ERA and histological dating and a pET according to the ERA were performed. The receptive (R) or non‐receptive (NR) status of the endometrium as a result of the first ERA, endometrial dating, and pregnancy rates after the pET were analyzed.
Results
Of the patients with RIF, 12 (24%) were NR. Among them, eight (66.7%) were prereceptive. A clinical follow‐up was possible in 44 patients who underwent the pET. The pregnancy rates were 58.8% per patient and 35.3% per first pET in the R patients and 50.0% per patient and 50.0% per first pET in the NR patients. Discrepancies between the ERA results and histological dating were seen more in the NR patients than in the R patients.
Conclusions
For patients with unexplained RIF, there is a significance in searching for their personal window of implantation (WOI) using the ERA, considering the percentage of those who were NR and the pregnancy rates that resulted from the pET. By transferring euploid embryos in a personal WOI, much better pregnancy rates are expected.