The Use of Vaginal Ultrasound for Monitoring Endometrial Preparation in a Donor Oocyte Program
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Objective: To determine whether vaginal sonographic measurements can be used to monitor the endometrial preparation of recipients in a donor egg program.
Design: Prospective clinical trial.
Setting: University hospital-based IVF and donor egg program.
Patients: Twelve women without ovarian function.
Interventions: [1] In a control cycle, patients received 4 or 8 mg of oral E2 and vaginal ultrasound (US) daily until endometrial thickness > or = 6 mm with a triple-line pattern (favorable endometrium) was seen. Progesterone (P) in oil, 100 mg/d, was then added. [2] An endometrial biopsy was performed on day 7 of P therapy. [3] In a treatment cycle, US monitoring of endometrial development during estrogen (E) administration was used; and ET was performed on the 3rd day of P therapy.
Results: In the control cycle, 8 mg/d or 4 mg/d of micronized E2 resulted in favorable endometrium development in all patients in a mean time of 5 and 7 days, respectively. After P treatment, only 1 of 12 endometrial biopsies was in phase. In the treatment cycles, the overall clinical pregnancy rate (PR) was 42%. In those patients with a favorable endometrium in the E replacement phase, before addition of P, the PR was 62.5%. All of the pregnant patients but only 42.8% of the nonpregnant patients had a favorable endometrium on US before the addition of P.
Conclusion: An endometrium that is favorable for implantation can result from the use of a simple fixed dose of E2, with higher doses achieving favorable endometrial development in shorter time. Vaginal sonography of endometrial development before P administration is more accurate than endometrial biopsy in predicting a successful donor egg cycle. Endometrial preparation in donor oocyte programs can be simplified by the use of vaginal US monitoring.
Shuai J, Chen Q, Wan S, Chen X, Liu W, Ye H Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2024; 22(1):88.
PMID: 39080633 PMC: 11290307. DOI: 10.1186/s12958-024-01260-4.
Abbassi R, Haddad S, Haneyah F, Nakawa W, Murad M, Issa A Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(24):e38554.
PMID: 38875415 PMC: 11175857. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038554.
De la Torre Perez E, Carratala-Munuera M, Castillo-Farfan J, Lledo-Bosch B, Moliner-Renau B, Bernabeu-Garcia A Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023; 14:1285040.
PMID: 38027116 PMC: 10666753. DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1285040.
Liu Y, Ma L, Zhu M, Yin H, Yan H, Shi M Medicine (Baltimore). 2022; 101(31):e29928.
PMID: 35945767 PMC: 9351881. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000029928.
Frozen Blastocyst Embryo Transfer: Comparison of Protocols and Factors Influencing Outcome.
Eleftheriadou A, Francis A, Wilcox M, Jayaprakasan K J Clin Med. 2022; 11(3).
PMID: 35160185 PMC: 8836366. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11030737.