SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology / 2016 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3

Kontrollü hiperstimülasyon sikluslarda implantasyon penceresinin non-invaziv tespiti: Embriyo transferi yapılan menstürasyon günü ile beklenen menstürasyon siklusu arasındaki zaman ipucu verir mi?

Non-invasive prediction of implantation window in controlled hyperstimulation cycles: Can the time from the menstrual day at embryo transfer to expected menstrual cycle give a clue?

İlhan ŞANVERDİ
ENİS ÖZKAYA
Tayfun KUTLU
Taylan ŞENOL
Munip AKALIN
Eda AKALIN SAYAR
Yavuz ŞAHİN
Ateş KARATEKE
Pages
116–122
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Cut off value for TETEMC was 11.5 days with 75% sensitivity and 63.2% specificity.Conclusion: Longer menstrual cycle and the TETEMC seem to be associated with the implantation failure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to assess whether the time from the menstrual day at embryo transfer to expected menstrual cycle (TETEMC) is associated with the implantation in women with regular cycles or not.Materials and Methods: Forty women with successful implantation and forty women without implantation with regular cycles were randomly selected from prospectively collected database of assisted reproductive technology clinic of Zeynep Kamil Women And Children's Health Training and Research Hospital.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: Comparison of groups revealed significant differences with regard to TETEMC and the menstrual period (p<0.05).In ROC analyses both the TETEMC (AUC=0.824, p<0.001) and the menstrual period (AUC=0.797, p<0.001) were significant predictors for clinical pregnancy.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Cut off value for TETEMC was 11.5 days with 75% sensitivity and 63.2% specificity.Conclusion: Longer menstrual cycle and the TETEMC seem to be associated with the implantation failure.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess whether the time from the menstrual day at embryo transfer to expected menstrual cycle (TETEMC) is associated with the implantation in women with regular cycles or not.Materials and Methods: Forty women with successful implantation and forty women without implantation with regular cycles were randomly selected from prospectively collected database of assisted reproductive technology clinic of Zeynep Kamil Women And Children's Health Training and Research Hospital. TETEMC was calculated for each case to assess relationship with the successful implantation. Results: Comparison of groups revealed significant differences with regard to TETEMC and the menstrual period (p<0.05).In ROC analyses both the TETEMC (AUC=0.824, p<0.001) and the menstrual period (AUC=0.797, p<0.001) were significant predictors for clinical pregnancy. Cut off value for the menstrual period was found to be 27.5 days with 82.6% sensitivity and 65% specificity. Cut off value for TETEMC was 11.5 days with 75% sensitivity and 63.2% specificity.Conclusion: Longer menstrual cycle and the TETEMC seem to be associated with the implantation failure.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı düzenli mens olan hastalarda embriyo transferi yapılan gün ile beklenen siklus günü arasındaki sürenin (TETEMC) implantasyon ile ilişkisini değerlendirmektir.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Zeynep Kamil Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi İnfertilite Kliniği'ne başvuran hastalar çalışmaya dahil edildi. Rastgele seçilmiş, adet siklusları düzenli ve başarılı implantasyon elde edilmiş 40 hasta ile, adet süreleri düzenli başarısız implantasyon elde edilen 40 hastanın tıbbi kayıtları prospektif olarak toplandı. Hastaların implantasyon ilişkisini değerlendirebilmek için TETEMC süreleri hesaplandı. Bulgular: Gruplar karşılaştırıldığında menstrüel siklus günü ile TETEMC arasında anlamlı fark bulundu (p<0,05). ROC analizinde TETEMC (AUC=0,824, p<0,001) ve menstrüel gün (AUC=0,797, p<0,001) klinik gebeliğin anlamlı belirteçleri olarak bulundu. Menstrüel gün için cut off değeri hesaplandığında 27,5 gün için sensitivite %82,6 spesifite %65 bulundu. TETEMC için cut off değer %75 sensitivite ve %63,2 spesifite ile 11,5 gün bulundu. Sonuç: Uzun menstrüel siklus ile TETEMC implantasyon başarısızlığı ile ilişkili görünmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞANVERDİ, İ., ÖZKAYA, E., KUTLU, T., ŞENOL, T., AKALIN, M., SAYAR, E. A., ŞAHİN, Y., KARATEKE, A. (2016). Kontrollü hiperstimülasyon sikluslarda implantasyon penceresinin non-invaziv tespiti: Embriyo transferi yapılan menstürasyon günü ile beklenen menstürasyon siklusu arasındaki zaman ipucu verir mi?. Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3, 116–122. https://ajindex.com/articles/376344

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Navot D, Scott RT, Droesch K, Veeck LL, Liu HC, Rosenwaks Z. The window of embryo transfer and the efficiency of human conception in vitro. Fertil Steril 1991;55:114-8.
  2. Wilcox AJ, Baird DD, Weinberg CR. Time of implantation of the conceptus and loss of pregnancy. N Engl J Med 1999;340:1796-9.
  3. Prapas Y, Prapas N, Jones EE, Duleba AJ, Olive DL, Chatziparasidou A, et al. The window for embryo transfer in oocyte donation cycles depends on the duration of progesterone therapy. Hum Reprod 1998;13:720-3.
  4. Saadat P, Boostanfar R, Slater CC, Tourgeman DE, Stanczyk FZ, Paulson RJ. Accelerated endometrial maturation in the luteal phase of cycles utilizing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: impact of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists versus antagonists. Fertil Steril 2004;82:167-71.
  5. Gonen Y, Casper RF. Prediction of implantation by the sonographic appearance of the endometrium during controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF). J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1990;7:146-52.
  6. Gonen Y, Casper RF, Jacobson W, Blankier J. Endometrial thickness and growth during ovarian stimulation: a possible predictor of implantation in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1989;52:446-50.
  7. Coulam CB, Bustillo M, Soenksen DM, Britten S. Ultrasonographic predictors of implantation after assisted reproduction. Fertil Steril 1994;62:1004-10.
  8. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive M, Embryology ESIGo. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1270-83. Hernandez ER. Embryo implantation and GnRH antagonists: embryo implantation: the Rubicon for GnRH antagonists. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1211-6.
  9. Dong KW, Marcelin K, Hsu MI, Chiang CM, Hoffman G, Roberts JL. Expression of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) gene in human uterine endometrial tissue. Mol Hum Reprod 1998;4:893-8.
  10. Raga F, Casan EM, Kruessel JS, Wen Y, Huang HY, Nezhat C, et al. Quantitative gonadotropin-releasing hormone gene expression and immunohistochemical localization in human endometrium throughout the menstrual cycle. Biol Reprod 1998;59:661-9.
  11. Fauser BC, Devroey P. Why is the clinical acceptance of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cotreatment during ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization so slow? Fertil Steril 2005;83:1607-11.
  12. Griesinger G, Felberbaum R, Diedrich K. GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation: a treatment regimen of clinicians' second choice? Data from the German national IVF registry. Hum Reprod 2005;20:2373-5. A