Endometrial response to IVF hormonal manipulation: Comparative analysis of menopausal, down regulated and natural cycles

BACKGROUND: Uterine luminal epithelial cell response to different hormonal strategies was examined to determine commonality when an endometrium attains a receptive, stimulated, morphological profile that may lead to successful implantation. METHODS: Endometrial biopsies from 3 cohorts of patients were compared. The tissue samples taken from these patients were categorized into 8 different groups according to their baseline and the hormone regime used. RESULTS: Pre-treatment natural cycle tissue was variable in appearance. Downregulation with a GnRH analogue tissue appeared menopausal in character. HRT after downregulation resulted in tissue uniformity. HRT in menopause resulted in a 'lush' epithelial surface. HST in the natural cycle improved the morphology with significant difference in secretion between the two regimes examined. CONCLUSIONS: Down regulation plus HRT standardized surface appearance but tissue response is significantly different from the natural cycle, natural cycle plus HRT or menopause plus HRT. HRT in menopause reinstates tissue to a state similar to a natural cycle but significantly different from a natural cycle plus HST. HST with a natural cycle is similar to tissue from the natural cycle but significant differences reflect the influence of the particular hormones present (at any point) within the cycle

Manipulation of the follicular phase: Uterodomes and pregnancy - is there a correlation?

BACKGROUND: Manipulation of the follicular phase uterine epithelium in women undergoing infertility treatment, has not generally shown differing morphological effects on uterine epithelial characteristics using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and resultant pregnancy rates have remained suboptimal utilising these manipulations. The present study observed manipulation of the proliferative epithelium, with either 7 or 14 days of sequential oestrogen (E) therapy followed by progesterone (P) and assessed the appearance of pinopods (now called uterodomes) for their usefulness as potential implantation markers in seven women who subsequently became pregnant. Three endometrial biopsies per patient were taken during consecutive cycles: day 19 of a natural cycle - (group 1), days 11/12 of a second cycle after 7 days E then P - (group 2), and days 19/22 of a third cycle after 14 days E then P - (group 3). Embryo transfer (ET) was performed in a subsequent long treatment cycle (as per Group 3). RESULTS: Seven pregnancies resulted in seven viable births including one twins and one miscarriage. Analysis of the individual regimes showed 5 days of P treatment to have a higher correlation for uterodomes in all 3 cycles observed individually. It was also observed that all 7 women demonstrated the appearance of uterodomes in at least one of their cycles. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that manipulation of the follicular phase by shortening the period of E exposure to 7 days, does not compromise uterine epithelial morphology and we add weight to the conclusion that uterodomes indicate a receptive endometrium for implantation

Endometrial response to IVF hormonal manipulation: Comparative analysis of menopausal, down regulated and natural cycles

Abstract Background Uterine luminal epithelial cell response to different hormonal strategies was examined to determine commonality when an endometrium attains a receptive, stimulated, morphological profile that may lead to successful implantation. Methods Endometrial biopsies from 3 cohorts of patients were compared. The tissue samples taken from these patients were categorized into 8 different groups according to their baseline and the hormone regime used. Results Pre-treatment natural cycle tissue was variable in appearance. Downregulation with a GnRH analogue tissue appeared menopausal in character. HRT after downregulation resulted in tissue uniformity. HRT in menopause resulted in a 'lush' epithelial surface. HST in the natural cycle improved the morphology with significant difference in secretion between the two regimes examined. Conclusions Down regulation plus HRT standardized surface appearance but tissue response is significantly different from the natural cycle, natural cycle plus HRT or menopause plus HRT. HRT in menopause reinstates tissue to a state similar to a natural cycle but significantly different from a natural cycle plus HST. HST with a natural cycle is similar to tissue from the natural cycle but significant differences reflect the influence of the particular hormones present (at any point) within the cycle.</p