Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Assessing the Impact of Genratest on Women With Recurrent Implantation Failure: A Single-Center Study.
Tran, Huy Phuong; Ly, Loc Thai; Do, Vy Nguyen-Thao; Hoang, Tuyet Thi-Diem; Tran, Thuy Thi-Thanh; Le, Hien Nguyen-Trong; Nguyen, Phuong Thi-Vy; Nguyen, Ngoc Anh; Huynh, Trang Nguyen-Khanh.
Affiliation
  • Tran HP; Infertility Department, Hung Vuong Hospital, Ho Chi Minh, VNM.
  • Ly LT; Infertility Department, Hung Vuong Hospital, Ho Chi Minh, VNM.
  • Do VN; Medical Genetics Department, Hung Vuong Hospital, Ho Chi Minh, VNM.
  • Hoang TT; Infertility Department, Hung Vuong Hospital, Ho Chi Minh, VNM.
  • Tran TT; Infertility Department, Hung Vuong Hospital, Ho Chi Minh, VNM.
  • Le HN; Infertility Department, Hung Vuong Hospital, Ho Chi Minh, VNM.
  • Nguyen PT; Infertility Department, Hung Vuong Hospital, Ho Chi Minh, VNM.
  • Nguyen NA; Infertility Department, Hung Vuong Hospital, Ho Chi Minh, VNM.
  • Huynh TN; Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department, Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh, VNM.
Cureus ; 16(1): e52256, 2024 Jan.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38347968
ABSTRACT
Objective Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a significant challenge in assisted reproduction. Genratest has emerged as a potential tool to identify the displaced window of implantation (WOI). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of this test on the pregnancy outcomes of RIF patients. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 143 RIF patients who were categorized into two groups the personalized embryo transfer (pET, n=69) group and standard embryo transfer (sET, n=74) group. The main measured outcomes were clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates. Results Genratest effectively diagnoses the displaced WOI in 90% of RIF patients. The pET group exhibited a higher rate of clinical pregnancy (n=36/69, 52.2%) compared to the sET group (n=35/74, 47.3%), but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.679). Ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable between the pET (n=28/69, 40.6%) and the sET (n=30/74, 40.5%) groups (p=0.996). Live birth rates showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups (n=26/69, 37.7% versus n=22/74, 29.7%, p=0.407). Miscarriage rates were similar in both groups (n=9/69, 13% versus n=11/74, 14.9%, p=0.942). Conclusions pET based on the results of the Genratest did not show a significant improvement in pregnancy outcomes, including clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, or miscarriage rates. Further research is needed to identify the role of Genratest in RIF patients.
Key words