Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (36)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, L. B.
Right arrow Articles by Schmidt-Sarosi, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schwartz, L. B.
Right arrow Articles by Schmidt-Sarosi, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol 12, 45-50, Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press

ARTICLES

The embryo versus endometrium controversy revisited as it relates to predicting pregnancy outcome in in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer cycles

LB Schwartz, AS Chiu, M Courtney, L Krey and C Schmidt-Sarosi
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University Medical Center, NY 10016, USA.

To evaluate embryonic and endometrial factors for their value in predicting pregnancy outcome in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer, a retrospective data collection and prospective uterine artery colour Doppler imaging study was performed in a university-based IVF-embryo transfer programme setting. A total of 210 patients were included and grouped as follows: (I) IVF with controlled ovarian stimulation (214 cycles); (II) frozen-thaw cycle of autologous embryos (30 cycles); (III) oocyte donation, no cryopreservation (12 cycles); (IV) frozen-thaw cycle with embryos from donated oocytes (10 cycles). Embryo quality was significantly better in pregnant than non-pregnant cycles (group I, P = 0.0104; groups II-IV, P = 0.0418). The endometrial echo was significantly thicker in pregnant versus non-pregnant patients in group I (P = 0.0059), but not in groups II-IV (P = 0.741). Past uterine surgery or abnormalities had no effect on pregnancy outcome. There were no significant differences in mean uterine artery resistance index or peak systolic velocity in pregnant versus non-pregnant patients in groups II-IV. Thus, embryo quality is the most reliable predictor of pregnancy outcome. Endometrial measurements were significantly thicker in subsequently pregnant patients only in group I, where the endometrium reflects the hormonal environment. Doppler parameters were not useful in predicting pregnancy outcome.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Endocr. Rev.Home page
S. Palomba, A. Falbo, F. Zullo, and F. Orio Jr.
Evidence-Based and Potential Benefits of Metformin in the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review
Endocr. Rev., February 1, 2009; 30(1): 1 - 50.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
S. Palomba, T. Russo, F. Orio Jr, A. Falbo, F. Manguso, A. Sammartino, A. Tolino, A. Colao, E. Carmina, and F. Zullo
Uterine effects of clomiphene citrate in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a prospective controlled study
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2006; 21(11): 2823 - 2829.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
N.J. Raine-Fenning, B.K. Campbell, N.R. Kendall, J.S. Clewes, and I.R. Johnson
Endometrial and subendometrial perfusion are impaired in women with unexplained subfertility
Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2004; 19(11): 2605 - 2614.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
J. Ohl, C. Lefebvre-Maunoury, C. Wittemer, G. Nisand, M.-C. Laurent, and P. Hoffmann
Nitric oxide donors for patients undergoing IVF. A prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Hum. Reprod., October 1, 2002; 17(10): 2615 - 2620.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.