反复植入失败:现实还是统计上的海市蜃楼?: 2022年7月1日卢加诺复发性植入失败研讨会的共识声明

Paul Pirtea, M. Cedars, K. Devine, B. Ata, J. Franasiak, C. Racowsky, J. Toner, R. Scott, D. de Ziegler, K. Barnhart
{"title":"反复植入失败:现实还是统计上的海市蜃楼?: 2022年7月1日卢加诺复发性植入失败研讨会的共识声明","authors":"Paul Pirtea, M. Cedars, K. Devine, B. Ata, J. Franasiak, C. Racowsky, J. Toner, R. Scott, D. de Ziegler, K. Barnhart","doi":"10.1097/ogx.0000000000001189","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Despite advancements in assisted reproductive technologies over the past few decades, a 35% failure rate is still observed for unexplained reasons when transferring euploid embryos to an anatomically normal uterus. Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is defined based on cumulative ART cycles failing; however, there is an absence in consensus on the diagnostic criteria, which leads to the risk of overdiagnosing and overtreating the condition.\n This consensus statement by the Lugano RIF Workshop aimed to merge variation in the clinical concept and management of RIF, focusing primarily on euploid blastocyst transfers in hormone replacement-primed cycles. The workshop comprised a panel of 27 international experts selected on the basis of overall research activities and publications on the subject. A literature search as conducted for all relevant titles and abstracts published between January 2015 and May 2022 for review. Consensus conclusions were based on the literature search and expert opinions.\n Consideration of an RIF diagnosis was determined to focus on failure to achieve sustained implantation (defined as a gestational sac identified on ultrasound). Historically, RIF was defined as the failed transfer of >10 embryos; however, today, a common number used is 3, which is also similar to the rate of failure based on a 95% confidence interval. Based on large clinical data sets, approximately 2%–5% of patients pursuing ART treatment may have RIF, and the decline in future implantation rate with each cycle fits more to an exponential delay curve than a linear decrease. The diagnosis of RIF should not be considered based on a single cohort of embryos, but rather on the number of euploid blastocyst transferred adjusted to patient’s age. In the absence of abnormal uterine bleeding and normal uterine size, further evaluation of asymptomatic adenomyosis is not warranted. Testing for biomarkers of endometrial receptivity and the endometrial microbiome have not been validated using RCTs and should not be used. The role of chronic inflammation in RIF remains unclear, but evidence suggests chronic endometritis does not directly play a role in ART outcome as assessed by sustained implantation rate after euploid embryo transfer. Substantial evidence exists that is low progesterone on the day of embryo transfer results in worse ART outcomes, and that IM progesterone may be superior to vaginal progesterone. There are no effective treatments for RIF currently, and immunomodulatory treatments that may be offered including glucocorticoids, IVIG, and GCSF have a lack of comprehensive data.\n This consensus document finds that RIF is likely present in fewer than 5% of patients undergoing ART and has been overdiagnosed and overtreated without sufficient critical evaluation of the presumed condition. It also highlights areas where future research is needed, both in the pathophysiologic cause of RIF and hypothetical treatment modalities.","PeriodicalId":144618,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey","volume":"71 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recurrent Implantation Failure: Reality or a Statistical Mirage?: Consensus Statement From the July 1, 2022 Lugano Workshop on Recurrent Implantation Failure\",\"authors\":\"Paul Pirtea, M. Cedars, K. Devine, B. Ata, J. Franasiak, C. Racowsky, J. Toner, R. Scott, D. de Ziegler, K. Barnhart\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ogx.0000000000001189\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Despite advancements in assisted reproductive technologies over the past few decades, a 35% failure rate is still observed for unexplained reasons when transferring euploid embryos to an anatomically normal uterus. Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is defined based on cumulative ART cycles failing; however, there is an absence in consensus on the diagnostic criteria, which leads to the risk of overdiagnosing and overtreating the condition.\\n This consensus statement by the Lugano RIF Workshop aimed to merge variation in the clinical concept and management of RIF, focusing primarily on euploid blastocyst transfers in hormone replacement-primed cycles. The workshop comprised a panel of 27 international experts selected on the basis of overall research activities and publications on the subject. A literature search as conducted for all relevant titles and abstracts published between January 2015 and May 2022 for review. Consensus conclusions were based on the literature search and expert opinions.\\n Consideration of an RIF diagnosis was determined to focus on failure to achieve sustained implantation (defined as a gestational sac identified on ultrasound). Historically, RIF was defined as the failed transfer of >10 embryos; however, today, a common number used is 3, which is also similar to the rate of failure based on a 95% confidence interval. Based on large clinical data sets, approximately 2%–5% of patients pursuing ART treatment may have RIF, and the decline in future implantation rate with each cycle fits more to an exponential delay curve than a linear decrease. The diagnosis of RIF should not be considered based on a single cohort of embryos, but rather on the number of euploid blastocyst transferred adjusted to patient’s age. In the absence of abnormal uterine bleeding and normal uterine size, further evaluation of asymptomatic adenomyosis is not warranted. Testing for biomarkers of endometrial receptivity and the endometrial microbiome have not been validated using RCTs and should not be used. The role of chronic inflammation in RIF remains unclear, but evidence suggests chronic endometritis does not directly play a role in ART outcome as assessed by sustained implantation rate after euploid embryo transfer. Substantial evidence exists that is low progesterone on the day of embryo transfer results in worse ART outcomes, and that IM progesterone may be superior to vaginal progesterone. There are no effective treatments for RIF currently, and immunomodulatory treatments that may be offered including glucocorticoids, IVIG, and GCSF have a lack of comprehensive data.\\n This consensus document finds that RIF is likely present in fewer than 5% of patients undergoing ART and has been overdiagnosed and overtreated without sufficient critical evaluation of the presumed condition. It also highlights areas where future research is needed, both in the pathophysiologic cause of RIF and hypothetical treatment modalities.\",\"PeriodicalId\":144618,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0000000000001189\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0000000000001189","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

尽管在过去的几十年里,辅助生殖技术取得了进步,但由于无法解释的原因,将整倍体胚胎移植到解剖正常的子宫时,仍有35%的失败率。复发性植入失败(RIF)是基于ART周期累积失败的定义;然而,在诊断标准上缺乏共识,这导致了过度诊断和过度治疗的风险。卢加诺RIF研讨会的这一共识声明旨在合并RIF临床概念和管理中的差异,主要关注激素替代启动周期中的整倍体囊胚转移。讲习班由一个由27名国际专家组成的小组组成,这些专家是根据关于这个问题的全面研究活动和出版物选出的。对2015年1月至2022年5月期间发表的所有相关标题和摘要进行文献检索。共识结论是基于文献检索和专家意见。考虑RIF诊断的重点是未能实现持续着床(定义为超声发现的妊娠囊)。历史上,RIF被定义为bb10胚胎移植失败;然而,今天,一个常用的数字是3,这也类似于基于95%置信区间的失败率。根据大型临床数据集,大约2%-5%的接受ART治疗的患者可能有RIF,未来植入率随每个周期的下降更符合指数延迟曲线,而不是线性下降。RIF的诊断不应基于单个胚胎队列,而应根据患者年龄调整的整倍体囊胚数量进行转移。在没有异常子宫出血和子宫大小正常的情况下,没有必要进一步评估无症状子宫腺肌症。子宫内膜容受性和子宫内膜微生物组的生物标志物检测尚未通过随机对照试验验证,因此不应使用。慢性炎症在RIF中的作用尚不清楚,但有证据表明慢性子宫内膜炎在整倍体胚胎移植后持续着床率评估的ART结果中并不直接起作用。有大量证据表明,胚胎移植当天的孕酮水平较低会导致较差的ART结果,并且IM孕酮可能优于阴道孕酮。目前还没有针对RIF的有效治疗方法,可提供的免疫调节治疗包括糖皮质激素、IVIG和GCSF缺乏全面的数据。这份共识文件发现,在接受抗逆转录病毒治疗的患者中,可能只有不到5%的患者存在RIF,并且在没有对假定的病情进行充分的批判性评估的情况下,被过度诊断和过度治疗。它还强调了未来需要研究的领域,包括RIF的病理生理原因和假设的治疗方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Recurrent Implantation Failure: Reality or a Statistical Mirage?: Consensus Statement From the July 1, 2022 Lugano Workshop on Recurrent Implantation Failure
Despite advancements in assisted reproductive technologies over the past few decades, a 35% failure rate is still observed for unexplained reasons when transferring euploid embryos to an anatomically normal uterus. Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is defined based on cumulative ART cycles failing; however, there is an absence in consensus on the diagnostic criteria, which leads to the risk of overdiagnosing and overtreating the condition. This consensus statement by the Lugano RIF Workshop aimed to merge variation in the clinical concept and management of RIF, focusing primarily on euploid blastocyst transfers in hormone replacement-primed cycles. The workshop comprised a panel of 27 international experts selected on the basis of overall research activities and publications on the subject. A literature search as conducted for all relevant titles and abstracts published between January 2015 and May 2022 for review. Consensus conclusions were based on the literature search and expert opinions. Consideration of an RIF diagnosis was determined to focus on failure to achieve sustained implantation (defined as a gestational sac identified on ultrasound). Historically, RIF was defined as the failed transfer of >10 embryos; however, today, a common number used is 3, which is also similar to the rate of failure based on a 95% confidence interval. Based on large clinical data sets, approximately 2%–5% of patients pursuing ART treatment may have RIF, and the decline in future implantation rate with each cycle fits more to an exponential delay curve than a linear decrease. The diagnosis of RIF should not be considered based on a single cohort of embryos, but rather on the number of euploid blastocyst transferred adjusted to patient’s age. In the absence of abnormal uterine bleeding and normal uterine size, further evaluation of asymptomatic adenomyosis is not warranted. Testing for biomarkers of endometrial receptivity and the endometrial microbiome have not been validated using RCTs and should not be used. The role of chronic inflammation in RIF remains unclear, but evidence suggests chronic endometritis does not directly play a role in ART outcome as assessed by sustained implantation rate after euploid embryo transfer. Substantial evidence exists that is low progesterone on the day of embryo transfer results in worse ART outcomes, and that IM progesterone may be superior to vaginal progesterone. There are no effective treatments for RIF currently, and immunomodulatory treatments that may be offered including glucocorticoids, IVIG, and GCSF have a lack of comprehensive data. This consensus document finds that RIF is likely present in fewer than 5% of patients undergoing ART and has been overdiagnosed and overtreated without sufficient critical evaluation of the presumed condition. It also highlights areas where future research is needed, both in the pathophysiologic cause of RIF and hypothetical treatment modalities.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信