Gynecological endocrinology : the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology · 2023
Personalized embryo transfer based on RNA sequencing endometrial receptivity test in repeated implantation failure patients: artificial cycle versus natural cycle.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shu Mingming, Yao Shun, Zhong Wei, Song Chunlan, Chen Fu, Shang Wei
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Embryo implantation provides an efficient way for patients with repeated implantation failure (RIF) to achieve pregnancy. The aim of this study is to compare the implantation outcomes of RIF patients in artificial cycle to those in natural cycle, both were treated with RNA sequencing endometrial receptivity test (rsERT) based personalized embryo implantation.
METHODS: The endometrial receptivity (ER) analysis was performed using rsERT followed by personalized embryo transfer at optimal window of implantation (WOI). The implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) were calculated. The expression levels of biomarkers involved in pregnancy process in the patients detected as in receptivity status were also analyzed.
RESULTS: The rsERT shown that 44.8% (natural cycle) and 47.8% (artificial cycle) patients were in non-receptive status, which indicated a WOI displacement. After personalized embryo transfer, the IR of patients in artificial cycle was higher than those in natural cycle (52.2% vs 27.6%). The expressions of FKBP52, MUC1 and LPAR3 were significantly lower in artificial cycle than in natural cycle.
CONCLUSION: Using artificial cycle for personalized embryo transfer based on rsERT may yield better pregnancy outcomes for RIF patients. A gene expression analysis of FKBP52, MUC1 and LPAR3 provided a potential way to increase implantation outcomes for RIF patients.
METHODS: The endometrial receptivity (ER) analysis was performed using rsERT followed by personalized embryo transfer at optimal window of implantation (WOI). The implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) were calculated. The expression levels of biomarkers involved in pregnancy process in the patients detected as in receptivity status were also analyzed.
RESULTS: The rsERT shown that 44.8% (natural cycle) and 47.8% (artificial cycle) patients were in non-receptive status, which indicated a WOI displacement. After personalized embryo transfer, the IR of patients in artificial cycle was higher than those in natural cycle (52.2% vs 27.6%). The expressions of FKBP52, MUC1 and LPAR3 were significantly lower in artificial cycle than in natural cycle.
CONCLUSION: Using artificial cycle for personalized embryo transfer based on rsERT may yield better pregnancy outcomes for RIF patients. A gene expression analysis of FKBP52, MUC1 and LPAR3 provided a potential way to increase implantation outcomes for RIF patients.