Image_1_Cumulative Live Birth Rate in Patients With Thin Endometrium: A Real-World Single-Center Experience.JPEG
Background: Studies have shown that patients with a thin endometrial thickness (EMT < 7 or 8 mm) during IVF/ICSI tend to have adverse pregnancy outcomes, and this has caused much anxiety to both patients and physicians when confronted with a thin EMT.
Method: From January 2015 to December 2018, patients with a thin EMT < 7 mm on the day of hCG administration during their first GnRH agonist IVF/ICSI cycle were included. According to the hysteroscopy results, patients were classified into totally normal (Group A), normal with a specific abnormality (Group B), and adhesion before transfer (Group C).
Result: For the 245 patients included, approximately 60% of the thin EMT cases were the result of an intrauterine operation. CLBR was 35.45% (67/189) in this group of patients. In regard to CLBR, there were significant differences among these three uterus condition groups irrespective of the number of oocytes retrieved (28.57 vs. 10.00 vs. 4.76%, P = 0.12 in oocyte ≤5; 61.36 vs. 44.67 vs. 23.63%, P = 0.00 in oocyte >5). In binary logistic regression analysis, age (OR = 0.09, P = 0.03), number of embryos available (OR = 1.71, P = 0.00), and uterine condition (OR = 6.77, P = 0.00 for group A; OR = 2.55, P = 0.04 for group B; Reference = group C), were significantly associated with CLBR. However, EMT and endometrial pattern had no impact on CLBR.
Conclusion: An intrauterine operation was the main reason for a thin EMT. Thin EMT patients with a normal uterine cavity and endometrium had a significantly better CLBR compared with those with adhesions before transfer.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1093/humupd/dmu011
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fendo.2018.00776
- https://doi.org//10.1177/1933719118816835
- https://doi.org//10.1371/journal.pone.0145703
- https://doi.org//10.1093/hropen/hox031
- https://doi.org//10.1093/humrep/dey281
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.09.020
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.05.036
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00404-017-4411-z
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.05.002
- https://doi.org//10.1093/humrep/dez103
- https://doi.org//10.1097/01.gco.0000175357.25932.89
- https://doi.org//10.5455/msm.2017.29.58-67
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s13224-015-0780-z
- https://doi.org//10.1093/humrep/dep396
- https://doi.org//10.1177/1933719112459221
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.01.029
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s12958-017-0233-x
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.12.062
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.12.016
CC BY 4.0