Search

Importance: To date, recurrent implantation failure (RIF) has no clear definition and no clearly identified impaired function. Hence, the term RIF is currently used somewhat haphazardly, on the basis of clinicians' judgment., Objective: International experts in reproductive medicine met on July 1, 2022, in Lugano, Switzerland, to review the different facets of RIF and define the diagnosis and its appropriate management., Evidence Review: A systematic review without meta-analysis of studies published in English from January 2015 to May 2022., Findings: Data indicated that RIF has been largely overevaluated, overdiagnosed, and overtreated without sufficient critical assessment of its true nature. Our analyses show that true RIF is extremely uncommon-occurring in <5% of couples with infertility-and that reassurance and continued conventional therapies are warranted in most cases of assisted reproductive technology (ART) failure. Although the true biologic determinants of RIF may exist in a small subset of people with infertility, they elude the currently available tools for assessment. Without identification of the true underlying etiology(ies), it is reasonable not to assign this diagnosis to a patient until she has failed at least 3 euploid blastocyst transfers (or the equivalent number of unscreened embryo transfers, adjusted to the patient's age and corresponding euploidy rate). In addition, other factors should be ruled out that may contribute to her reduced odds of sustained implantation. In such cases, implantation failure should not be the only issue considered in case of ART failure because this may result from multiple other factors that are not necessarily repetitive or persistent. In reality, RIF impacting the probability of further ART success is a very rare occurrence., Conclusion: True RIF is extremely uncommon, occurring in <5% of couples with infertility. Reassurance and continued conventional therapies are warranted in most cases. It would seem reasonable not to assign this diagnosis to a patient until she has failed at least 3 euploid embryo transfers (or the equivalent number of unscreened embryos, adjusted to her age)., Relevance: Given the number of internationally recognized experts in the field present at the Lugano meeting 2022, our publication constitutes a consensus statement., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To present a definition of recurrent implantation failure that accounts for the effects of female age and anticipated blastocyst euploidy rates on cumulative implantation rates., Design: Mathematical modeling., Setting: Not applicable., Patient(s): Not applicable., Intervention(s): Mathematical modeling of cumulative implantation probability on the basis of published blastocyst euploidy rates across categories of female age., Main Outcome Measure(s): The number of blastocysts required to achieve 95% cumulative implantation probability under the assumption of the absence of any other factor affecting implantation., Result(s): When the euploidy status of the transferred embryo is unknown (i.e., not subjected to preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies), our simulation shows that no age category reaches 95% cumulative probability of implantation of at least one embryo until after transfer of seven blastocysts. The number of blastocysts required to reach the same threshold is higher for older patients. For example, women older than 38 years require transfer of more than 10 untested blastocysts for the upper range of predictive probability to meet the threshold of 95%. On the other hand, if the implantation rate for a euploid blastocyst is assumed to be 55%, then 4 blastocysts are enough to reach a cumulative probability rate greater than 95%, regardless of age., Conclusion(s): The term "recurrent implantation failure" should be a functional term guiding further management. We suggest that recurrent implantation failure should not be called until implantation failure becomes reasonably likely to be caused by factors other than embryo aneuploidy, the leading cause of implantation failure. We propose a new definition that factors in anticipated blastocyst euploidy rates across categories of female age, euploid blastocyst implantation rate, and a specified threshold of cumulative probability of implantation., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2020, SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on the access to and provision of ART treatments. Gradually, knowledge of the virus and its transmission has become available, allowing ART activities to resume. Still, questions on the impact of the virus on human gametes and fertility remain.Objective and Rationale: This article summarizes published data, aiming to clarify the impact of SARS-CoV-2 and the COVID-19 disease on human fertility and assisted reproduction, as well as the impact of vaccination, and from this, provide answers to questions that are relevant for people contemplating pregnancy and for health care professionals.Search Methods: PUBMED/MEDLINE and the WHO COVID-19 database were searched from inception to 5 October 2022 with search terms focusing on 'SARS-CoV-2' and gametes, embryos, reproductive function, fertility and ART. Non-English studies and papers published prior to 2020 were excluded, as well as reviews and non-peer reviewed publications. Full papers were assessed for relevance and quality, where feasible.Outcomes: From the 148 papers included, the following observations were made. The SARS-CoV-2-binding proteins, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and type II transmembrane serine protease (TMPRSS2), are expressed in the testis, but co-expression remains to be proven. There is some evidence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the ejaculate of COVID-19 patients with severe disease, but not in those with mild/moderate disease. SARS-CoV-2 infection can impair spermatogenesis, but this seems to resolve after one spermatogenic cycle. Testosterone levels seem to be lower during and after COVID-19, but long-term data are lacking; disease severity may be associated with testosterone levels. COVID-19 cannot be considered a sexually transmitted disease. There is no co-expression of ACE2 and TMPRSS2 in the myometrium, uterus, ovaries or fallopian tubes. Oocytes seem to have the receptors and protease machinery to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, viral RNA in oocytes has not been detected so far. Women contemplating pregnancy following COVID-19 may benefit from screening for thyroid dysfunction. There is a possible (transient) impact of COVID-19 on menstrual patterns. Embryos, and particularly late blastocysts, seem to have the machinery to be susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most studies have not reported a significant impact of COVID-19 on ovarian reserve, ovarian function or follicular fluid parameters. Previous asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in females does not seem to negatively affect laboratory and clinical outcomes of ART. There are no data on the minimum required interval, if any, between COVID-19 recovery and ART. There is no evidence of a negative effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on semen parameters or spermatogenesis, ovarian function, ovarian reserve or folliculogenesis. A transient effect on the menstrual cycle has been documented. Despite concerns, cross reactivity between anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies and Syncytin-1, an essential protein in human implantation, is absent. There is no influence of mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine on patients' performance during their immediate subsequent ART cycle. Pregnancy rates post-vaccination are similar to those in unvaccinated patients.Wider Implications: This review highlights existing knowledge on the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 on fertility and assisted reproduction, but also identifies gaps and offers suggestions for future research. The knowledge presented should help to provide evidence-based advice for practitioners and couples contemplating pregnancy alike, facilitating informed decision-making in an environment of significant emotional turmoil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the prognostic factors for intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle cancellation in patients with endometriosis-related infertility. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study and conducted at the Assisted Reproductive Technology center of Uludag University School of Medicine, between the years 2011-2017. The electronic database was screened and infertile patients with endometriosis, without male factor infertility, systemic disease, or undefined adnexal mass, and aged <40 were selected. The endometriosis phenotype of all cycles was classified into three subgroups: superficial endometriosis, ovarian endometrioma and deep infiltrating endometriosis. Cycles were divided into two groups: Group I (Cycle Cancellation) vs. Group II (Embryo transferred). RESULTS: Forty-four cycles were canceled and in 178 cycles, the embryo was able to be transferred. When the groups were compared age and day 3 FSH levels were statistically higher, and anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count were statistically lower in Group I. The presence of adenomyosis was higher in Group I (64% vs. 40% p<0.01). The surgery rate with laparotomy was higher in Group I (54.5% vs. 13.5% p<0.01). Antral follicle count remained as the only independent factor associated with prognoses of the IVF cycle with binary logistic regression analysis. Cancellation rates were similar between the phenotypes of endometriosis. CONCLUSIONS: Poor ovarian reserve, advanced age, presence of adenomyosis, and history of laparotomy are negative prognostic factors associated with intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle cancellation in endometriosis-related infertility. Antral follicle count is the only independent factor in predicting cycle cancellation. The phenotype of endometriosis does not affect the results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study compared outcomes of the standard 6000 IU human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger with a dual trigger comprised of 6000 IU hCG and 1 mg leuprolide acetate for final oocyte maturation in an intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle. By convention, ICSI was performed in most cases at the clinic. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of 50 women were included in each arm. Participants were matched for age, indication and number of prior assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles. Women at risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) were excluded. A flexible gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol was used and final oocyte maturation was triggered when two leading follicles were >17 mm. Distribution of variables was evaluated visually with histograms. Continuous variables were defined by mean (standard deviation) or median (25th-75th percentile) depending on distribution characteristics. Categorical variables were defined by numbers and percentages. Continuous variables were compared between the groups with the t test or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. Categorical variables were compared by the chi-square test and its derivatives as appropriate. A two-sided P<0.05 indicated statistical significance. Results: Both groups had similar antral follicle counts, median parity (0) and number of previous failed cycles (0). The median number of oocytes (8 vs. 7), metaphase-two oocytes (6 vs. 5.5), blastocysts (1 vs. 1), clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) (28% vs. 22%), ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) (22% vs. 20%) and pregnancy rate per transfer (53.3% vs 53.8%) were similar between the dual trigger and hCG only groups, respectively. Conclusion: Dual trigger for oocyte maturation stimulation failed to improve the ICSI outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]