VOLUME 2, ISSUE 3, P295-302, AUGUST 01, 2021
Majiyd Abdul Noushin, M.D., M.R.C.P.I., F.R.M., Mohamed Ashraf, M.D., D.G.O., D.P.S., Chaitra Thunga, M.D., D.N.B., F.R.M., Sankalp Singh, M.D., D.N.B., Swati Singh, M.D., D.N.B., Reema Basheer, M.D., F.R.M., Raiza Ashraf, M.B.B.S., M.Sc., F.C.E., Kanna Jayaprakasan, M.D., Ph.D.
To compare the effectiveness of treatment with autologous activated platelet-rich plasma (PRP), administered to either the subendometrium (SE-PRP) or endometrial surface (intrauterine; IU-PRP), against controls.
Prospective observational cohort study.
Tertiary fertility unit.
Women aged <40 years with a history of recurrent implantation failure undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET) (n = 318).
In SE-PRP, PRP was injected into the subendometrial space transvaginally in the luteal phase of the previous cycle of embryo transfer under ultrasound guidance (n = 55). In IU-PRP, PRP was administered during the index FET cycle when the endometrium was approximately 7 mm (n = 109). Both SE-PRP and IU-PRP groups were administered 300 μg of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) subcutaneously once a day for 3 days to boost white blood cells (WBC) and growth factor production in the PRP sample. The control group consisted of women who did not choose PRP treatment and underwent standard FET with no intervention (n = 154).
Main Outcome Measures
Ongoing pregnancy rate or live birth rate (OPR/LBR) per transfer cycle, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) per transfer cycle, and miscarriage rate.
As a result, OPR/LBR was higher in the SE-PRP (22/55, 40%) and IU-PRP (45/109, 41.3%) groups than that in the control group (34/154, 22.1%). It was similar between the SE-PRP and IU-PRP groups. Moreover, CPR showed a similar trend with a higher rate in the SE-PRP (28/55, 51%) and IU-PRP (57/109, 52.3%) groups than that in the controls (52/154, 33.8%). No statistical difference in the CPR was noted between the SE-PRP and IU-PRP groups. The miscarriage rate was similar in all three groups (14/55, 25.45%; 25/109, 22.23%; and 34/154, 22.07%, respectively).
In women with a history of recurrent implantation failure, PRP treatment appears to improve FET outcome with an increase in OPR/LBR. However, SE-PRP treatment does not offer any advantage over lesser invasive IU-PRP treatment.