Effectiveness comparison between Endometrial Receptivity Array, Immune Profiling and the combination in treating patients with multiple implantation failure.

PROBLEM The clinical value of endometrial receptivity array (ERA), endometrial immune profiling, or a combination of both for multiple implantation failure patients is unclear. METHOD OF STUDY One hundred and seventy-two women with a history of at least two or more consecutive implantation failures in IVF/ICSI treatment were included. According to patients' willingness, they were divided into four groups, 'no treatment', 'Immune Profiling', 'ERA' and 'ERA + Immune Profiling'. Endometrial biopsy was examined by ERA, immune profiling alone, or combination, and intention was adopted accordingly. Pregnancy outcomes were compared, and the association between ERA phases and endometrial immune profiling was also assessed. RESULTS The overall incidence rate of the displaced window of implantation (WOI) and endometrial immune dysregulations were 84.9% and 75.3%, respectively. Implantation rate was significantly higher in the 'ERA + Immune Profiling' group than the 'no treatment' group (P = 0.007). Clinical pregnancy rate was somewhat improved in the three treatment groups but with a borderline significance (P = 0.071). After controlling for other confounders, 'ERA + Immune Profiling' treatment was associated with a higher pregnancy rate [aOR (95%CI)  =  3.412 (1.387-8.395), P = 0.008]. There was no association between endometrial immune profiling and ERA phases. CONCLUSIONS Our findings highlight the high incidence of displaced WOI and endometrial immune dysregulation in multiple implantation failure patients. The combination of ERA and endometrial immune profiling is more likely to have clinical value than ERA or immune profiling alone. These data suggested the unsubstitutability of ERA and endometrial immune profiling on the treatment outcome for multiple implantation failure patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.