Ask Our Doctors – Archive
Our Medical Directors are outstanding physicians that you will find to be very personable and compassionate, who take care to ensure that you have the most cutting-edge fertility treatments at your disposal. This is your outlet to ask your questions to the doctors.
Hi Dr. Scher. I had a transfer today of an embryo that had significant cell loss at thaw, but it was a euploid embryo (CGH normal). It was progressing nicely in the 1 hour or so after the thaw, and actually hatched before transfer – still pretty collapsed, but did that whole crunch/expand thing to hatch. Additionally, the embryologist said a few of the lost cells were starting to adhere back to it in the culture before it hatched. So it was definitely alive, but it had approx. 70% cells survive. How important is that cell loss? How much should I discount my chances of success because it lost all those cells?
Sorry – to clarify- it was a CGH normal blast that was graded 4BB before biopsy/freeze.
Hard to say…but I can tell you that many alive thawed embryos appear collapsed at transfer and expand later in the uterus.
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr. Sher…I was wondering what your thoughts were on using testosterone gel vs. Hgh for low responders with DOR..also. ..if I used a bcp before the cycling. .would i be suppressing too much at the risk of not having follicles?
I am against it because poor responders often have excessive ovarian testosterone (which is bad for egg development) and this in my opinion is like adding fuel to the fire…
Geoff Sher
Doctor here in Argentina lupron is not available, is the same to use Gonapeptyl daily to overlapp with BCP???
I am 28 years old and my partner is 38. I have had two failed fresh ivf cycles. The first I had 11 eggs and 5 fertilised and the second 12 eggs and 6 fertilised. On the first cycle three went to day 5 and were put back but no pregnancy, on the second cycle four went to day 5 blasts and two were transferred and two were frozen. It was discovered that I had endometriosis. Approximately 6 weeks before the second ivf I had a hysteroscopy which showed a lot of inflammation and a blood test that showed that I had some immune problems and was told this would indicate endometriosis. I received intrallipids on the second ivf but still no pregnancy. On the egg transfer it was noted I had some endometriosis on one ovary and after my failed cycle I had a laparoscopy and further hysteroscopy and was told I had mild endometriosis. They also said in my second hysteroscopy that there was still a lot of inflammation and white stuff and it was hard to find a blood supply in my uterus, could you tell me why this is? The endometriosis was removed cut out and burnt and a couple of endo tumours were cut out. My partner did have 3% morphology but good count and good movement but the clinic think that it is my eggs that are not good quality and that is why the ivf is failing. It is now 6 weeks since my laparoscopy. Do you think that my eggs will have improved since this procedure and it will make a difference to my next ivf or will it help me get pregnant naturally? On my first cycle I had quite a thin lining of 8.9 and it wasn’t triple lined but on my second ivf I had a lining thickness of 9.8 and it was triple lined, they said this was due to the hysteroscopy. I have very short periods of 2 days only. I was also told my progesterone level was 37 on day 21, which seems to be on the lower side, should I use a progesterone cream to help with this and would it in turn help my lining. Please could you help answer some of my questions. Thank you. Laura
I strongly doubt that you have an intrinsic egg issue at your age. That would be unusual! This sounds very much like an endometriosis-related immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID).
The considerable emotional, physical and financial burden associated with infertility treatment in general and with IVF in specific, demand that factors known to affect outcome be identified and regulated prior to initiating treatment.
Just as a successful garden needs a ”good” seed properly planted in fertile soil to produce healthy plants, successful embryo implantation requires a good seed (genetically “normal” embryo) and fertile soil (receptive uterine lining) to make a healthy baby. I have long used this “Seed/Soil Relationship” analogy to help clarify the critical nature of the interaction between embryo and endometrium in the successful propagation of pregnancy..
There have in the last decade been numerous reports suggesting that certain drugs/supplements (e.g. GCSF) and endometrial receptivity testing/preparation might dramatically improve implantation. As yet, none of these have been proven to be effective. This article addresses the influence of the most relevant and important factors that are known to affect .endometrial receptivity and discusses approaches to treatment:
1. Endometrial thickness
In 1989, I first demonstrated that in both normal and “hormonally stimulated” cycles, preovulatory endometrial thickness as assessed by ultrasound examination, is partially predictive of embryo implantation (pregnancy) potential following IVF. Ideally the endometrium should measure at least 8.0mm in thickness, (but preferably >9mm).
A “poor” endometrial lining is most commonly due to: 1) inflammation of the uterine lining (endometritis) that usually occurs as a result of endometritis (inflammation of the uterine lining that can follow a septic delivery, partial retention of the placenta following delivery, abortion or miscarriage, 2) severe adenomyosis (gross invasion of the uterine muscle by endometrial glandular tissue), 3) multiple fibroid tumors of the uterine wall) 4) prenatal exposure to the synthetic hormone, diethylstilbestrol (DES) and, 5) following >3, consecutive, back to back cycles of clomiphene citrate ovulation induction.
Treatment with vaginal Sildenafil (Viagra): Hitherto, attempts to augment endometrial growth in women with poor endometrial linings by bolstering circulating estrogen blood levels (through the administration of increased doses of fertility drugs, aspirin administration and with supplementary estrogen therapy) have yielded disappointing results.
In the mid-90’s I first reported on the finding that thee vaginal administration of Viagra for several days prior to the “hCG trigger “ or progesterone administration enhances uterine blood flow and estrogen delivery to the uterine lining and so improves endometrial thickening. Then In October 2002, I reported on the administration of vaginal Viagra to 105 women with repeated IVF failure due to persistently thin endometrial linings. All of the women had experienced at least two (2) prior IVF failures attributed to intractably thin uterine linings. About 70% of these women responded to treatment with Viagra suppositories with a marked improvement in endometrial thickness and 45% of these women achieved live IVF- births following a single cycle of treatment with Viagra. Nine percent (9%) miscarried. None of the women who had failed to achieve an improvement in endometrial thickness following Viagra therapy, subsequently and who underwent embryo transfers achieved viable pregnancies.
2.Uterine Pathology:
It has long been suspected that anatomical defects of the uterus might result in infertility.
While myomas (fibroids) embedded deep in the uterine wall, are unlikely to cause infertility, an association between their presence and infertility has been observed in cases where they distort the uterine cavity, or protrude as submucous polyps through the endometrial lining. It would appear that even small submucous myomas have the potential to prejudice implantation.
Far too many infertile women found to have a partial or complete septum in the uterus are subjected to surgical excision of the septum with a promise that this will enhance subsequent implantation. This is an erroneous belief. Contrary to popular belief, the presence of a septum that partially or completely partitions the uterine cavity, while being responsible (in some cases) for late miscarriages and premature onset of labor, does NOT cause failed implantation.
It is likely that most surface lesions in the uterine cavity, whether due to an endometrial, placental or fibroid polyp (no matter how small), or intrauterine adhesions, have the potential to interfere with implantation by producing a local “inflammatory”- type response, not too dissimilar in nature from that which is caused by a foreign body such as a intrauterine contraceptive device. Unfortunately, a dye X-Ray test (hysterosalpingogram/HSG) will often miss many smaller such lesions. The only reliable methods for diagnosing even the smallest of such lesions, is through the performance of a hysterosongram (HSN),a hysteroscopy or an MRI.
Hysterosonogram (syn. Saline ultrasound): This procedure involves the trans-cervical injection of a physiological saline solution via a catheter, into the uterine cavity. The fluid distended cavity is then examined by vaginal ultrasound for any irregularities that might point to surface lesions such as polyps, fibroid tumors, scarring, or a uterine septum. If performed correctly, the HSN is highly effective in recognizing even the smallest surface lesions that protrude into the uterine cavity. It is less expensive, less traumatic, and diagnostically, equally reliable as hysteroscopy. The only disadvantage lies in the fact that if a lesion is detected, it may require the subsequent performance of hysteroscopic surgical approach to treating the problem..
Hysteroscopy: Diagnostic hysteroscopy is an office procedure that is performed under intravenous sedation, general or local anesthesia, with minimal discomfort to the patient. The procedure involves the insertion of a thin, lighted, telescope like instrument known as a hysteroscope through the vagina and cervix into the uterus in order to fully examine the uterine cavity. The uterus is first distended with carbon dioxide gas, which is passed through a sleeve adjacent to the hysteroscope. As is the case with FUS, diagnostic hysteroscopy facilitates examination of the inside of the uterus under direct vision for defects that might interfere with implantation.
We have observed that approximately 8% of candidates for IVF have intrauterine lesions that require attention prior to undergoing IVF in order to optimize the chances of a successful outcome. We strongly recommend that all patients who have such lesions undergo surgery (D&C and/or hysteroscopic resection) to correct the pathology prior to undergoing IVF. Depending on the severity and nature of the pathology, therapeutic hysteroscopy may require general anesthesia. If so, it should be performed in an outpatient surgical facility or in a conventional operating room.
3. Immunologic factors
The implantation process begins six or seven days after fertilization of the egg. At this time, specialized embryonic cells (i.e., the trophoblast), which later becomes the placenta; begin growing into the uterine lining. When the trophoblast and the uterine lining meet, they, along with Immune cells in the lining, become involved in a “cross talk” through mutual exchange of hormone-like substances called cytokines. Because of this complex immunologic interplay, the uterus is able to foster the embryo’s successful growth. Thus, from the very earliest stage of implantation the trophoblast establishes a foundation for the future nutritional, hormonal and respiratory interchange between mother and baby. In this manner, the interactive process of implantation is not only central to survival in early pregnancy but also to the quality of life after birth.
Considering its importance, it is not surprising that failure of proper function of this immunologic interaction during implantation has been implicated as a cause of recurrent miscarriage, late pregnancy fetal loss, IVF failure, and infertility. A partial list of immunologic factors that may be involved in these situations includes anti-phospholipid antibodies (APA), antithyroid antibodies (ATA), and most importantly activation of uterine natural killer cells (NKa). Presently, these immunologic markers in the blood can be only adequately measured by a handful of highly specialized reproductive immunology laboratories in the United States. I personally use Reproductive Immunology Associates in Van Nuys, CA or Reprosource in Boston, MA.
The Central role of Natural Killer cells: After ovulation and during early pregnancy, NK cells comprise more than 70% of the immune cell population of the uterine lining. NK cells produce a variety of local hormones known cytokines. Uncontrolled, excessive release of certain cytokines (i.e. TH-1 cytokines) is highly toxic to the trophoblast (“root system”) of the embryo” leading to their programmed death (apoptosis) and, subsequently to failed or compromised/dysfunctional implantation. In the following situations NK cells become activated, and start to produce an excess of TH-1 cytokines:
•Autoimmune Implantation Dysfunction: This is most commonly seen in association with a personal or family history of autoimmune diseases such as ith conditions such as Rheumatoid arthritis, hypothyroidism endometriosis and Lupus Erythematosus, Scleroderma, dermatomyositis etc. It is also encountered in one third of women who have endometriosis (regardless of its severity), and in cases of “unexplained infertility” as well as with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
•Alloimmune implantation dysfunction where the male and female partners share specific genetic (DQ-alpha and/or HLA) similarities This is commonly seen in cases of RPL and in cases of secondary infertility
Activated NK cells (NKa) can be detected through the K-562 target cell blood test and (more recently) through uterine biopsy for TH-1 cytokine activity. Treatment involves selective use of Intralipid (IL) or immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy combined with oral steroids, initiated more 10-14 days prior to embryo transfer and in most cases of alloimmune implantation dysfunction, the transfer of a single blastocyst at a time.
Unless tests for immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID) are performed correctly and conducted by a one of the few reliable reproductive immunology reference laboratory in the United States, treatment will likely be unsuccessful. . In this regard it is most important that the right tests be ordered and that these be performed by a competent laboratory. There are in my opinion only a handful of reliable Reproductive Immunology Laboratories in the world and most are in the U.S.A. Also, it is my opinion that far too often, testing is inappropriate with the many redundant and incorrect tests being requested from and conducted by suboptimal laboratories. Finally for treatment to have the best chance of being successful, it is vital that the underlying type of IID (autoimmune IID versus alloimmune) be identified correctly and that the type, dosage, concentration and timing of treatments be carefully devised and implemented.
Who Should Undergo IID testing?
When it comes to who should be evaluated, the following conditions should in always raise a suspicion of an underlying IID, and trigger prompt testing:
•A diagnosis of endometriosis or the existence of symptoms suggestive of endometriosis (heavy/painful menstruation and pain with ovulation or with deep penetration during intercourse) I would however emphasize that a definitive diagnosis of endometriosis requires visualization of the lesions at laparoscopy or laparotomy)
•A personal or family history of autoimmune disease such as hyper/hypothyroidism (as those with elevated or depressed TSH blood levels, regardless of thyroid hormonal dysfunction), Lupus erythematosus, Rheumatoid arthritis, dermatomyositis, scleroderma etc.)
•“Unexplained” infertility
•Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)
•A history of having miscarried a conceptus that, upon testing of products of conception, was found to have a normal numerical chromosomal configuration (euploid).
•Unexplained IVF failure
• “Unexplained” intrauterine growth retardation due to placental insufficiency or late pregnancy loss of a chromosomally normal baby
What Parameters should be tested?
In my opinion, too many Reproductive Immunologists unnecessarily unload a barrage of costly IID tests on unsuspecting patients. In most cases the initial test should be for NK cell activation, and only if this is positive, is it necessary to expand the testing.
The parameters that require measurement include:
oFor Autoimmune Implantation Dysfunction: Autoimmune implantation dysfunction, most commonly presents with presumed “infertility” due to such early pregnancy losses that the woman did not even know she was pregnant in the first place. Sometimes there as an early miscarriage. Tests required are: a) blood levels of all IgA, IgG and IgM-related antiphospholipid antibodies (APA’s) directed against six or seven specific phospholipids, b) both antithyroid antibodies (antithyroid and antimicrosomal antibodies), c) a comprehensive reproductive immunophenotype (RIP) and, c) most importantly, assessment of Natural Killer (NK) cell activity (rather than concentration) by measuring by their killing, using the K-562 target cell test and/or uterine cytokine measurement. As far as the ideal environment for performing such tests, it is important to recognize that currently there are only about 5 or 6, Reproductive Immunology Reference Laboratories in the U.S capable of reliably analyzing the required elements with a sufficient degree of sensitivity and specificity (in my opinion).
oFor Alloimmune implantation Dysfunction: While alloimmune Implantation usually presents with a history of unexplained (usually repeated) miscarriages or secondary infertility (where the woman conceived initially and thereupon was either unable to conceive started having repeated miscarriages it can also present as “presumed” primary infertility. Alloimmune dysfunction is diagnosed by testing the blood of both the male and female partners for matching DQ alpha genes and NK/CTL activation. It is important to note that any DQ alpha match (partial or complete) will only result in IID when there is concomitant NK/CTL activation (see elsewhere on this blog).
How should results be interpreted?
Central to making a diagnosis of an immunologic implantation dysfunction is the appropriate interpretation of natural killer cell activity (NKa) .In this regard, one of the commonest and most serious errors, is to regard the blood concentration of natural killer cells as being significant. Rather it is the activity (toxicity) of NK cells that matters as mentioned. Then there is the interpretation of reported results. The most important consideration is the percentage of target cells “killed” in the “native state”. In most cases a level of >10% killing should be regarded with suspicion and >12% overtly abnormal. In my opinion, trying to interpret the effect of adding IVIG or Intralipid to the sample in order assess whether and to what degree the use of these products would have a therapeutic benefit is seriously flawed and of little benefit. Clinically relevant NK cell deactivation can only be significantly effected in vivo and takes more than a week following infusion to occur. Thus what happens in the laboratory by adding these products to the sample prior to K-562 target cell testing is in my opinion likely irrelevant.
There exists a pervasive but blatant misconception on the part of many, that the addition of Intralipid (IL) /immunoglobulin-G IVIG) can have an immediate down-regulatory effect on NK cell activity. This has established a demand that Reproductive Immunology Reference Laboratories report on NK cell activity before and following exposure to IVIG and/or IL. However, the fact is that activated “functional” NK cells (NKa) cannot be deactivated in the laboratory. Effective down-regulation of activated NK cells can only be adequately accomplished if their activated “progenitor/parental” NK cells are first down-regulated. Thereupon once these down-regulated “precursor” NK cells are exposed to progesterone, they will begin spawning normal and functional NK cells, which takes about 10-14 days. It follows that to assess for a therapeutic response to IVIG/IL therapy would require that the patient first be treated (10-14 days prior to embryo transfer) and thereupon, about 2 weeks later, be retested. While at 1st glance this might seem to be a reasonable approach, in reality it would be of little clinical benefit because even if blood were to be drawn 10 -14 days after IL/IVIG treatment it would require an additional 10 days to receive results from the laboratory, by which time it would be far too late to be of practical advantage.
Neither IVIG nor IL is capable of significantly suppressing already activated “functional NK cells”. For this to happen, the IL/IVIG would have to down-regulate progenitor (parent) NK cell” activity. Thus, it should be infused 10-14 several prior to ovulation or progesterone administration so that the down-regulated “progenitor/precursor” NK cells” can propagate a sufficient number of normally regulated “functional NK cell” to be present at the implantation site 7 days later. In addition, to be effective, IL/IVIG therapy needs to be combined with steroid (dexamethasone/prednisone/prednisolone) therapy to down-regulates (often) concomitantly activated T-cells.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements for Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Use of GnRH Antagonists (Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron) in IVF-Ovarian Stimulation Protocols.
•The Role of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 1-Background
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 2- Making a Diagnosis
•Immunologic Dysfunction (IID) & Infertility (IID): PART 3-Treatment
•Thyroid autoantibodies and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction: Importance of Meticulous Evaluation and Strategic Management 🙁 Case Report)
•Intralipid and IVIG therapy: Understanding the Basis for its use in the Treatment of Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction (IID)
•Intralipid (IL) Administration in IVF: It’s Composition; how it Works; Administration; Side-effects; Reactions and Precautions
•Natural Killer Cell Activation (NKa) and Immunologic Implantation Dysfunction in IVF: The Controversy!
Please call or email Julie Dahan, my patient concierge. She will guide you on how to set up an in-person or Skype consultation with me. You can reach Julie at on her cell phone or via email at any time:
Julie Dahan
•Email: Julied@sherivf.com
•Phone: 702-533-2691
?800-780-7437
Geoff Sher
I also suggest that you access the 4th edition of my book,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies”. It is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.
Dr Sher,
I’m 34 on long Lupron protocol? Debating on doing another cycle. What do you think of this cycle results? Should we change protocol? 17 follicles retrieved, 9 mature (2 others had ovulated before ER), 7 fertilized with ICSI, only 3 made it to freeze (BC embryos)?
Not really! However, I would need to learn more about the exact composition of the stimulation drugs, their dosage, and also the timing, “type” and dosage of the trigger.
I strongly recommend that you visit http://www.DrGeoffreySherIVF.com. Then go to my Blog and access the “search bar”. Type in the titles of any/all of the articles listed below, one by one. “Click” and you will immediately be taken to those you select. Please also take the time to post any questions or comments with the full expectation that I will (as always) respond promptly.
•The IVF Journey: The importance of “Planning the Trip” Before Taking the Ride”
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) for IVF: Selecting the ideal protocol
•IVF: Factors Affecting Egg/Embryo “competency” during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation(COS)
•The Fundamental Requirements For Achieving Optimal IVF Success
•Use of GnRH Antagonists (Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron) in IVF-Ovarian Stimulation Protocols.
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
• “Triggering” Egg Maturation in IVF: Comparing urine-derived hCG, Recombinant DNA-hCG and GnRH-agonist:
•The “Lupron Trigger” to Prevent Severe OHSS: What are the Pro’s and Con’s?
Please call or email Julie Dahan, my patient concierge. She will guide you on how to set up an in-person or Skype consultation with me. You can reach Julie at on her cell phone or via email at any time:
Julie Dahan
•Email: Julied@sherivf.com
•Phone: 702-533-2691
?800-780-7437
Geoff Sher
I also suggest that you access the 4th edition of my book ,”In Vitro Fertilization, the ART of Making Babies”. It is available as a down-load through http://www.Amazon.com or from most bookstores and public libraries.