Cargando…

Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two vs Three or More Implantation Failure

BACKGROUND: The definition of recurrent implantation failure (RIF) differs clinically, one of the most controversial diagnostic criteria is the number of failed treatment cycles. We tried to investigate whether the two implantation failure could be included in the diagnostic criteria of RIF. METHODS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sun, Yingying, Zhang, Yile, Ma, Xueshan, Jia, Weitong, Su, Yingchun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8339466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34367060
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.619437
_version_ 1783733607908507648
author Sun, Yingying
Zhang, Yile
Ma, Xueshan
Jia, Weitong
Su, Yingchun
author_facet Sun, Yingying
Zhang, Yile
Ma, Xueshan
Jia, Weitong
Su, Yingchun
author_sort Sun, Yingying
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The definition of recurrent implantation failure (RIF) differs clinically, one of the most controversial diagnostic criteria is the number of failed treatment cycles. We tried to investigate whether the two implantation failure could be included in the diagnostic criteria of RIF. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients (N=1518) aged under 40 years with two or more implantation failure, recruited from the Center for Reproductive Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2016 to June 2019. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounding factors by using binary logistic regression, the results showed that partial general information and: distribution of associated factors were significant differences such as maternal age (aOR=1.054, P=0.001), type of cycle (aOR=2.040, P<0.001), stage of embryos development (aOR=0.287, P<0.001), number of embryos transferred (aOR=0.184, P<0.001), female factor (tubal pathology) (aOR=0.432, P=0.031) and male factor (aOR=1.734, P=0.002) between the groups with two and three or more unexplained implantation failure. And further explored whether these differential factors had a significant negative impact on pregnancy outcome, the results showed that: for patients who had three unexplained implantation failure, in the fourth cycle of ET, the live birth rate decreased significantly with age (aOR=0.921, P<0.001), and the live birth rate of blastocyst transfer was significantly higher than that of cleavage embryo transfer (aOR=1.826, P=0.007). At their first assisted pregnancy treatment after the diagnosis of RIF according to these two different definitions, there were no significant difference in the biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate and abortion rate (P>0.05), but the live birth rate (35.64% vs 42.95%, P=0.004) was significantly different. According to the definition of ‘two or more failed treatment cycles’, the live birth rate of the first ET treatment after RIF diagnosis was significantly lower than that of patients according to the definition of ‘three or more failed treatment cycles’. CONCLUSION: For patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure, two implantation failure cannot be included in the diagnostic criteria of RIF. This study supports the generally accepted definition of three or more failed treatment cycles for RIF.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8339466
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83394662021-08-06 Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two vs Three or More Implantation Failure Sun, Yingying Zhang, Yile Ma, Xueshan Jia, Weitong Su, Yingchun Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) Endocrinology BACKGROUND: The definition of recurrent implantation failure (RIF) differs clinically, one of the most controversial diagnostic criteria is the number of failed treatment cycles. We tried to investigate whether the two implantation failure could be included in the diagnostic criteria of RIF. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the clinical data of patients (N=1518) aged under 40 years with two or more implantation failure, recruited from the Center for Reproductive Medicine of the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from January 2016 to June 2019. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounding factors by using binary logistic regression, the results showed that partial general information and: distribution of associated factors were significant differences such as maternal age (aOR=1.054, P=0.001), type of cycle (aOR=2.040, P<0.001), stage of embryos development (aOR=0.287, P<0.001), number of embryos transferred (aOR=0.184, P<0.001), female factor (tubal pathology) (aOR=0.432, P=0.031) and male factor (aOR=1.734, P=0.002) between the groups with two and three or more unexplained implantation failure. And further explored whether these differential factors had a significant negative impact on pregnancy outcome, the results showed that: for patients who had three unexplained implantation failure, in the fourth cycle of ET, the live birth rate decreased significantly with age (aOR=0.921, P<0.001), and the live birth rate of blastocyst transfer was significantly higher than that of cleavage embryo transfer (aOR=1.826, P=0.007). At their first assisted pregnancy treatment after the diagnosis of RIF according to these two different definitions, there were no significant difference in the biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate and abortion rate (P>0.05), but the live birth rate (35.64% vs 42.95%, P=0.004) was significantly different. According to the definition of ‘two or more failed treatment cycles’, the live birth rate of the first ET treatment after RIF diagnosis was significantly lower than that of patients according to the definition of ‘three or more failed treatment cycles’. CONCLUSION: For patients with unexplained recurrent implantation failure, two implantation failure cannot be included in the diagnostic criteria of RIF. This study supports the generally accepted definition of three or more failed treatment cycles for RIF. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8339466/ /pubmed/34367060 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.619437 Text en Copyright © 2021 Sun, Zhang, Ma, Jia and Su https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Endocrinology
Sun, Yingying
Zhang, Yile
Ma, Xueshan
Jia, Weitong
Su, Yingchun
Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two vs Three or More Implantation Failure
title Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two vs Three or More Implantation Failure
title_full Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two vs Three or More Implantation Failure
title_fullStr Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two vs Three or More Implantation Failure
title_full_unstemmed Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two vs Three or More Implantation Failure
title_short Determining Diagnostic Criteria of Unexplained Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Retrospective Study of Two vs Three or More Implantation Failure
title_sort determining diagnostic criteria of unexplained recurrent implantation failure: a retrospective study of two vs three or more implantation failure
topic Endocrinology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8339466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34367060
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.619437
work_keys_str_mv AT sunyingying determiningdiagnosticcriteriaofunexplainedrecurrentimplantationfailurearetrospectivestudyoftwovsthreeormoreimplantationfailure
AT zhangyile determiningdiagnosticcriteriaofunexplainedrecurrentimplantationfailurearetrospectivestudyoftwovsthreeormoreimplantationfailure
AT maxueshan determiningdiagnosticcriteriaofunexplainedrecurrentimplantationfailurearetrospectivestudyoftwovsthreeormoreimplantationfailure
AT jiaweitong determiningdiagnosticcriteriaofunexplainedrecurrentimplantationfailurearetrospectivestudyoftwovsthreeormoreimplantationfailure
AT suyingchun determiningdiagnosticcriteriaofunexplainedrecurrentimplantationfailurearetrospectivestudyoftwovsthreeormoreimplantationfailure