4.4 Article

Optimization of endometrial preparation results in a normal endometrial function test® (EFT®) and good reproductive outcome in donor ovum recipients

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASSISTED REPRODUCTION AND GENETICS
卷 23, 期 7-8, 页码 299-303

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-006-9061-1

关键词

cyclin E; donor ovum recipients; endometrial function test; implantation; markers of receptivity; p27

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Numerous studies have investigated potential markers of endometrial receptivity as predictors of successful implantation. Cyclin E and p27 have recently been studied using the endometrial function test (EFT). Our objective is to determine the correlation between the expression of cyclin E and p27 and the adequacy of uterine preparation of recipients using donor oocytes. Methods: Twenty recipients undergoing preparatory cycles with leuprolide acetate, estrogen, and progesterone. Endometrial biopsies were obtained 10-12 days after progesterone supplementation following the course of estrogen. The tissue was prepared for histological analysis and immunohistochemical staining for cyclin E assessment. The outcome of their subsequent ovum donation cycle was blinded to the reviewer of the EFT. Results: All recipients showed normal luteal transformation. Nineteen (95%) of the recipients had a normal EFT. This is significantly higher than what we demonstrated, previously, in unexplained infertility patients, where only 40% of such patients had a normal EFT. Thirteen recipients with a normal EFT had a clinical pregnancy, while 6 did not become pregnant in their subsequent transfer cycles. The sole patient with an abnormal EFT did not conceive on 2 subsequent cycles. Conclusions: While a normal EFT does not guarantee a successful pregnancy, an abnormal EFT appears to be associated with pregnancy failure. This may be useful in identifying women who need adjustments to their stimulation protocols prior to progressing to a physically, emotionally, and financially costly cycle.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据