Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul 22:12:619437.
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.619437. eCollection 2021.

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

Affiliations

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

Yingying Sun et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: definition; embryos transfer cycles; factor; outcome; recurrent implantation failure.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart representing the present study.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The number of RIF patients with two different definitions.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Coughlan C, Ledger W, Wang Q, Liu FH, Demirol A, Gurgan T, et al. . Recurrent Implantation Failure: Definition and Management. Reprod BioMed Online (2014) 28:14–38. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.08.011 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cimadomo D, Craciunas L, Vermeulen N, Vomstein K, Toth B. Definition, Diagnostic and Therapeutic Options in Recurrent Implantation Failure: An International Survey of Clinicians and Embryologists. Hum Reprod (2021) 36:305–17. 10.1093/humrep/deaa317 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Polanski LT, Baumgarten MN, Quenby S, Brosens J, Campbell BK, Raine-Fenning NJ. What Exactly do We Mean by ‘Recurrent Implantation Failure’? A Systematic Review and Opinion. Reprod BioMed Online (2014) 28:409–23. 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.12.006 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bashiri A, Halper KI, Orvieto R. Recurrent Implantation Failure-Update Overview on Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment and Future Directions. Reprod Biol Endocrinol (2018) 16:121. 10.1186/s12958-018-0414-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cakiroglu Y, Tiras B. Determining Diagnostic Criteria and Cause of Recurrent Implantation Failure. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol (2020) 32:198–204. 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000620 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources