What is the Optimum Endometrium Needed for Implantation?

Abstract

Implantation most critical step in reproduction. A complex process where blastocyst becomes intimately connected with maternal endometrium/decidua and requires; Competent embryo at blastocyst stage Receptive endometrium Synchronized dialogue between maternal and embryonic tissues Endometrial Changes for Implantation include architectural, morphological, cytochemical, molecular and genetic. These Changes Induce Endometrial receptivity, which is endometrial lining in a state of readiness for blastocyst implantation. It involves acquisition of adhesion ligands and loss of inhibitory components that may act as a barrier to an attaching embryo. Receptive endometrium is capable of selecting good quality embryos and reject the incompetent embryos. Endometrial Evaluation includes 1.Non-Invasive Assessment of Endometrial Receptivity by USG 2.Detection of abnormal Uterine cavity by 3D USG/SIS, HSG and Hysteroscopy 3.Diagnose Chronic Endometritis by hysteroscopy and Molecular tests? 4.Endometrial Microbiome by molecular tests 5.Endometrial asynchrony - Proteomics and transcriptomics 2D and 3D Ultrasound can Identify patients with poor implantation prognosis but has low predictive value in determining endometrial receptivity and IVF outcome. Ideal endometrial thickness for optimal outcome is between 7-14 mm. No Association was seen between clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) and endometrial pattern for women undergoing in IVF with fresh ET and FET. Minimum Endometrial Volume associated with pregnancy is 1.59 mL – 3D. But most pregnancies occur in volumes of 2-13 mL. Evaluation of endometrial volume is particularly useful in synechiae, adenomyosis and uterine anomalies. Vascularity demonstrated within Zone 3 or within Zones 3 and 4 prior to transfer is associated with good implantation rate. Presence of >3 peristaltic contractions of the sub endometrial myometrium/2 minutes interval on Day of hCG administration associated with poor implantation. Diagnosis of chronic endometritis is based on hysteroscopy, endometrial biopsy with plasma cells being identified histologically and specific treatment is determined based on microbial culture. Existence of non-Lactobacillus bacteria in the endometrium is correlated with negative impacts on reproductive function and should be considered as an emerging cause of implantation failure and pregnancy loss. Endometrial Receptivity Array (ERA) is validated for analysing the expression of 238 genes that are intimately related to endometrial receptivity. Abnormality in endometrial receptivity is displayed a specific gene expression profile. Intrauterine secretory profile directly linked to successful implantation and evaluation of endometrial fluid for cytokine, interleukin and growth factor secretions can be used to assess the endometrium. Conclusion: Identification of one or more of endometrial parameters that definitely indicate receptivity for implantation remains an elusive goal. None of the endometrial receptivity markers have sufficient discriminatory value to act as a diagnostic test for endometrial receptivity based on their ability to predict clinical pregnancy. Due to the dynamic, cyclic nature of the endometrium it may be difficult, to reliably assess endometrial function on the basis of a single test.