Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:47:31.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - Individualized Embryo Transfer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2021

Human M. Fatemi
Affiliation:
IVI Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Barbara Lawrenz
Affiliation:
IVI Middle East Fertility Clinic, Abu Dhabi, UAE
Get access

Summary

Despite the various advances and the increasing success rates of assisted conception treatment, implantation continues to be a rate limiting step. For implantation to occur a blastocyst must attach to and invade the endometrium and as such both the embryo and endometrium are considered critical to the process of implantation. However, there are other factors to consider. Many conditions of the uterine cavity may influence the ability of the embryo to implant such as uterine submucosal fibroids and endometrial polyps, which are well recognized to exert an adverse effect. In addition, an embryo’s implantation potential may be affected by sperm and oocyte quality. Iatrogenic factors such as laboratory conditions and embryo transfer technique play an important role in successful implantation, hence this chapter will focus on the embryo transfer procedure. This is the final step in the treatment cycle, the culmination of both clinicians’ and embryologists’ efforts and a day of great hope for the patients. The importance of the embryo transfer procedure is not to be underestimated. This chapter will highlight the importance to clinicians of not adopting a “one-size-fits-all” approach when planning embryo transfer. It is incumbent on reproductive medicine specialists to focus on the embryo transfer procedure, try to preempt any potential issues that may adversely affect success rates and adopt an individualized plan for embryo transfer when necessary.

Type
Chapter
Information
Individualized In-Vitro Fertilization
Delivering Precision Fertility Treatment
, pp. 130 - 136
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Roque, M, Lattes, K, Serra, S, et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013;99(1):156162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roque, M, Valle, M, Guimaraes, F, et al. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2015:103(5):11901193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourgain, C, Devroey, P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:515522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devroey, P, Bourgain, C, Macklon, NS, et al. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2004;15:8490.Google Scholar
Kolibianakis, E, Bourgain, C, Albano, C, et al. Effect of ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, gonadotropin release hormone antagonists, and human chorionic gonadotropin on endometrial maturation on the day of oocyte pick-up. Fertil Steril 2002;78:10251029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikas, G, Develioglu, OH, Toner, JP, et al. Endometrial pinopodes indicate a shift in the window of receptivity in IVF cycles. Hum Reprod 1999;14:787792.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simon, C, Velasco, JJG, Valbuena, D, et al. Increasing uterine receptivity by decreasing estradiol levels during the pre-implantation period in high responders with the use of a follicle stimulating hormone step down regimen. Fertil Steril 1998;70:234239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinerman, R, Mainigi, M. Why we should transfer frozen instead of fresh embryos: the translational rationale. Fertil Steril 2014;102(1):1018.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, Y, Lee, KF, Ng, EH, et al. Gene expression profiling of human peri-implantation endometria between natural and stimulated cycles. Fertil Steril 2008;90:21522164.Google Scholar
Haouzi, D, Assou, S, Mahmoud, K, et al. Gene expression profile of human endometrial receptivity: comparison between natural and stimulated cycles for the same patients. Hum Reprod 2009;24:14361445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maheshwari, A, Bhattacharya, S. Elective frozen replacement cycles for all: ready for prime time? Hum Reprod 2013;28(1):69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, BS, Daneshmand, ST, Garner, FC, et al. Freezes-all can be a superior therapy to another fresh cycle in patients with prior fresh blastocyst implantation failure. Reprod Biomed Online 2014;29:286290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roque, M, Valle, M, Guimaraes, F, et al. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2015;103:11901193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Magdi, Y, Damen, A, Fathi, A, et al. Revisiting the management of recurrent implantation failure through freeze-all policy. Fertil Steril 2017;108(1):7277.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Farhi, J, Ben-Haroush, A, Andrawus, N, et al. High serum oestradiol concentrations in IVF cycles increase the risk of pregnancy complications related to abnormal placentation. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;21:331337.Google Scholar
Joo, BS, Park, SH, An, BM, et al. Serum estradiol levels during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation influence the pregnancy outcome of in vitro fertilization in a concentration-dependent manner. Fertil Steril 2010;93:442446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imudia, AN, Awonuga, AO, Doyle, JO, et al. Peak serum estradiol level during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation is associated with increased risk of small for gestational age and preeclampsia in singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2012;97:13741379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Imudia, AN, Awonuga, AO, Kaimal, AJ, et al. Elective cryopreservation of all embryos with subsequent cryothaw embryo transfer in patients at risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome reduces the risk of adverse obstetric outcomes: a preliminary study. Fertil Steril 2013;99:168173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, E, Labarta, E, Crespo, J, et al. Circulating progesterone levels and ongoing pregnancy rates in controlled ovarian stimulation cycles for in vitro fertilization: analysis of over 4000 cycles. Hum Reprod 2010;25:20922100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Azemi, M, Kyrou, D, Kolibianakis, EM, et al. Elevated progesterone during ovarian stimulation for IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2012;24:381388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghobara, T, Gelbaya, TA, Ayeleke, RO. Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;5(7):CD003414.Google Scholar
Groenewoud, E, Cantineau, A, Kollen, BJ, et al. What is the optimal means of preparing the endometrium in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19(5):458470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groenewoud, E, Cohlen, B, Macklon, N. Programming the endometrium for deferred transfer of cryopreserved embryos: hormone replacement versus modified natural cycles. Fertil Steril 2018;109(5):768774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groenewoud, E, Cohlen, B, Al-Oraiby, A, et al. A randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of modified natural versus artificial cycle for cryo-thawed embryo transfer. Hum Reprod 2016;31(7):14831492.Google Scholar
Casper, R, Haas, J, Hsieh, TB, et al. Recent advances in in vitro fertilization. F1000Res 2017;6:1616.Google Scholar
Lee, RK, Yu, Sl, Chih, YF, et al. Effect of endometrial cavity fluid on clinical pregnancy rate in tubal embryo transfer (TET). J Assist Reprod Genet 2006;23:229234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chien, LW, Au, HK, Xiao, J, et al. Fluid accumulation within the uterine cavity reduces pregnancy rates in women undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2012;17:351356.Google Scholar
Levi, AJ, Segars, JH, Miller, BT, et al. Endometrial cavity fluid is associated with poor ovarian response and increased cancellation rates in ART cycles. Hum Reprod 2001;16:26102615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akman, MA, Erden, HF, Bahceci, M. Endometrial fluid visualized through ultrasonography during ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles impairs the outcome in tubal factor, but not PCOH, patients. Hum Reprod 2005;20:906909.Google Scholar
Coomarasamy, A. Endometrial cavity fluid identified during IVF treatment. In: Assisted Reproduction Techniques: Challenges and Management Options. Ed. Sharif, K, Coomarasamy, A. Blackwell, 2012:249251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mains, L, Van Voorhis, BJ. Optimizing the technique of embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2010;94:785790.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sallam, HN, Agameya, AF, Rahman, AF, et al. Impact of technical difficulties, choice of catheter, and the presence of blood on the success of embryo transfer–experience from a single provider. J Assist Reprod Genet 2003;20:135142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomas, C, Tikkinen, K, Tuomivaara, L, et al. The degree of difficulty of embryo transfer is an independent factor for predicting pregnancy. Hum Reprod 2002;17:26322635.Google Scholar
Sharif, K, Afnan, M, Lenton, W. Mock embryo transfer with a full bladder immediately before the real transfer for in-vitro fertilization treatment: the Birmingham experience of 113 cases. Hum Reprod 1995;10:17151718.Google Scholar
Mansour, R, Aboulghar, M, Serour, G. Dummy embryo transfer: a technique that minimizes the problems of embryo transfer and improves the pregnancy rate in human in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1990;54:678681.Google Scholar
Brown, JA, Buckingham, K, About-Setta, A, et al. Ultrasound versus “clinical touch” for catheter guidance during embryo transfer in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;1:CD006107.Google Scholar
Lesny, P, Killick, SR, Robinson, J, et al. Junctional zone contractions and embryo transfer: is it safe to use a tenaculum? Hum Reprod 1999;14:23672370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abou-Setta, AM, Al-Inany, HG, Mansour, RT, et al. Soft versus firm embryo transfer catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2005;20:31143121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sharif, K, Afnan, M, Lenton, W, et al. Transmyometrial embryo transfer after difficult immediate mock transcervical transfer. Fertil Steril 1996;65:10711074.Google Scholar
Yang, YS, Melinda, S, Ho, HN, et al. Effect of the number and depth of embryos transferred and unilateral or bilateral transfer in tubal embryo transfer (TET). J Assist Reprod Genet 1992;9:534538.Google Scholar
Sharif, K. Difficult embryo transfer. In: Assisted Reproduction Techniques: Challenges and Management Options. Ed. Sharif, K, Coomarasamy, A. Blackwell, 2012:252256.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×