Personalized Embryo Transfer Outcomes in Recurrent Implantation Failure Patients Following Endometrial Receptivity...

Introduction Implantation failure is a trending problem for pregnancy outcomes. Women's reproduction rates can increase by in-vitro fertilization, which comes with frequent implantation failures. These failures can be mitigated by the personalization of embryo transfer depending on the patient's implantation window. The study aimed to assess the importance of using an endometrial receptivity array (ERA) combined with pre-implantation genetic testing in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and the significant role of personalized embryo transfer (PET) after ERA in patients with a displaced window of implantation. The study also determined the efficacy of this approach in improving clinical outcomes. Methods We conducted this observational retrospective study following approval by the Ethics Committee of Wings In-Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Women's Hospital, a unit of Reveba Infertility Clinics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmadabad (Approval No. 2019/002/31B). Two hundred ninety-one RIF patients were recruited and categorized into Group I (patients without ERA group) and Group II (ERA study group). Patients in the ERA study group were screened for ERA and subclassified into receptive and nonreceptive ERA groups. PET was performed for all subjects in the ERA study group according to their receptivity as assessed by ERA. We also screened some of the patients for ploidy (genetic) status of embryos by pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) before embryo transfer. The study had a power of 95% and an alpha of 0.05; therefore, 80 ± 2 subjects were required to conduct the study.  Results The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate followed by the implantation rate. We found an improved clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate (73.5% and 78.6%) in the nonreceptive endometrial group after adjusting their embryo transfer schedule to their endometrial receptivity. The clinical pregnancy rate (64% and 65%) and implantation rate (65% and 74%) in receptive and nonreceptive ERA (respectively) were high in subjects with donor oocytes for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. In addition, patients who opted for PGT-A to eliminate the risk of transferring aneuploidy embryos had significantly better implantation (88% and 95% receptive and nonreceptive, respectively) and clinical pregnancy rates (100% in both groups) compared to non-PGT-A screened patients (p<0.05; 34% and 37% clinical pregnancy rate, 96% and 57% implantation rate in receptive and nonreceptive groups, respectively). Conclusion Endometrial receptivity assessment is a highly beneficial method to assess the genetic expression of the endometrium and embryo transfer timing. In our study, in patients with recurrent implantation failure, this technology found receptivity issues and provided a chance to plan embryo transfer according to the window of implantation. The combination of PGT-A with ERA rules out the genetic issues related to embryos. In RIF patients, ERA results-guided PET improved the implantation rate and reproductive outcomes.