The impact of an endometrial receptivity array on personalizing embryo transfer for patients with infertility: a meta-analysis

Huy Phuong Tran M.Sc. , Thuy Thi-Thanh Tran M.D. , Ly Thi Le Ph.D. , Bao The Pham Ph.D. , Sang Ngoc-Thanh Vu Ph.D. , Loc Thai Ly M.D. , Tuyet Thi-Diem Hoang M.D.
{"title":"The impact of an endometrial receptivity array on personalizing embryo transfer for patients with infertility: a meta-analysis","authors":"Huy Phuong Tran M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Thuy Thi-Thanh Tran M.D. ,&nbsp;Ly Thi Le Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Bao The Pham Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Sang Ngoc-Thanh Vu Ph.D. ,&nbsp;Loc Thai Ly M.D. ,&nbsp;Tuyet Thi-Diem Hoang M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.xfnr.2022.06.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To investigate the effectiveness of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) test on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Evidence Review</h3><p>The PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases were searched. We included studies investigating IVF outcomes between patients who underwent standard embryo transfer and personalized embryo transfer (PET) guided by the ERA results. The main outcome measures were the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate (LBR). The random-effects model was applied to pool data. We evaluated cohort and randomized controlled trial studies using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration tool.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Seventeen studies (7,052 patients, 4 randomized controlled trials, and 13 cohort studies) were included in this meta-analysis. Personalized embryo transfer on the basis of ERA was not found to optimize the gestational outcomes, including the implantation rate (risk ratio [RR], 1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83–1.2), clinical pregnancy rate (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85–1.15), ongoing pregnancy rate (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89–1.11), and miscarriage rate (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81–1.54). Further subgroup analysis indicated that patients undergoing PET in the first IVF cycle had a markedly increased LBR (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03–1.49). Conversely, PET among patients with a history of recurrent implantation failure did not enhance the LBR (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.64–1.36).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Endometrial receptivity array shows no significant improvement in IVF outcomes except in the LBR for patients undergoing the first IVF cycle. Additional research is required to ascertain the efficacy of ERA before achieving wider usage.</p></div><div><h3>PROSPERO Number</h3><p>CRD42021255124.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":73011,"journal":{"name":"F&S reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571922000081/pdfft?md5=3e0c4e8ba38486f01c72b7acf6bdab25&pid=1-s2.0-S2666571922000081-main.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F&S reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666571922000081","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the effectiveness of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) test on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes.

Evidence Review

The PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Scopus databases were searched. We included studies investigating IVF outcomes between patients who underwent standard embryo transfer and personalized embryo transfer (PET) guided by the ERA results. The main outcome measures were the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and live birth rate (LBR). The random-effects model was applied to pool data. We evaluated cohort and randomized controlled trial studies using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines and the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

Results

Seventeen studies (7,052 patients, 4 randomized controlled trials, and 13 cohort studies) were included in this meta-analysis. Personalized embryo transfer on the basis of ERA was not found to optimize the gestational outcomes, including the implantation rate (risk ratio [RR], 1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83–1.2), clinical pregnancy rate (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85–1.15), ongoing pregnancy rate (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89–1.11), and miscarriage rate (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81–1.54). Further subgroup analysis indicated that patients undergoing PET in the first IVF cycle had a markedly increased LBR (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03–1.49). Conversely, PET among patients with a history of recurrent implantation failure did not enhance the LBR (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.64–1.36).

Conclusion

Endometrial receptivity array shows no significant improvement in IVF outcomes except in the LBR for patients undergoing the first IVF cycle. Additional research is required to ascertain the efficacy of ERA before achieving wider usage.

PROSPERO Number

CRD42021255124.

子宫内膜容受性阵列对不孕患者个性化胚胎移植的影响:一项荟萃分析
目的探讨子宫内膜容受性阵列(ERA)检测对体外受精(IVF)结果的影响。检索PubMed/MEDLINE、ScienceDirect和Scopus数据库。我们纳入了在ERA结果指导下进行标准胚胎移植和个性化胚胎移植(PET)的患者之间的IVF结果的研究。主要观察指标为着床率、临床妊娠率、持续妊娠率、流产率、活产率(LBR)。随机效应模型应用于池数据。我们使用流行病学指南中加强观察性研究报告和Cochrane协作工具评估队列和随机对照试验研究。结果17项研究(7052例患者,4项随机对照试验,13项队列研究)纳入本荟萃分析。未发现基于ERA的个性化胚胎移植能够优化妊娠结局,包括着床率(风险比[RR], 1;95%可信区间[CI], 0.83-1.2),临床妊娠率(RR, 0.99;95% CI, 0.85-1.15),持续妊娠率(RR, 0.99;95% CI, 0.89-1.11),流产率(RR, 1.12;95% ci, 0.81-1.54)。进一步的亚组分析表明,在第一个试管婴儿周期接受PET的患者LBR显著增加(RR, 1.24;95% ci, 1.03-1.49)。相反,在有反复植入失败史的患者中,PET并没有增强LBR (RR, 0.86;95% ci, 0.64-1.36)。结论子宫内膜容受性阵列对体外受精(IVF)患者除LBR外无显著改善。在获得更广泛的应用之前,需要进一步的研究来确定ERA的功效。普洛斯彼罗NumberCRD42021255124。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
F&S reviews
F&S reviews Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health, Urology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
61 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信