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. Sher. Can PGS be done on already frozen embryos? Thanks for the time.
Yes it can and indeed many advocate this. However, in my opinion, it weakens these embryos.
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr Sher, Thank you for doing this page! I am wanting to try surrogacy with our own embryos, and I need to try to bank some embryos. I need help with working out what type of protocol I could try and also your opinion on a recent protocol that I did. I have done many IVF cycles and mostly they have been antagonist protocol, with no OCP prior. I keep having a dominant follicle issue. I am DOR and have just turned 38, but my AMH is actually going up. Last time it was 14 pmol/L. In terms of cycles, when I have done the OCP for 21 days I was oversupressed and it took me ages to get to EPU (like 17 days) and I didn’t have many eggs. I have tried Estrogen priming and this didn’t stop the dominant follicle issue and I worry that this will affect quality since I have endometriosis. I had a lap in april 2014 to remove the endo and a recent specialist scan showed no visible endometriosis (although I know there still may be some lurking undetected). I did your antagonist/agonist protocol and this also did not work well for me.
I went to Spain for an IVF cycle and they had me on the OCP from day 2 through to day 7, then i had 2 days off then I started stimulation (so it was CD10 when I started stimming). This was the only time that I didn’t have a dominant follicle issue, but unfortunately I travelled to Spain and ovulated my eggs before they could be collected (they were running a little late). I did an IUI and did get pregnant this month but my issue is recurrent chemical pregnancies. I wonder what you think of this type of protocol??
I have also done another type of ‘delayed start protocol’ where I had Cetrolide/Ganirelix on CD2 -C8 of my menstrual cycle. On Cd9 I started stimulation, but a scan at baseline on CD9 showed I already had some sizeable follicles, so I don’t know that this helped to make growth even. I did get pregnant this cycle also (ovulated eggs naturally) and this was my longest lasting pregnancy. What do you think of this type of protocol also? I really need to work out how to stop this dominant follicle issue, as I always have 6-7 follicles growing but they are so discrepant in size that only 2-3 will be mature as one or two seem to sprout way ahead! Please help, any suggestions welcome! What do you think of these delayed start protocols??
It is beyond the scope or intent of this response to detail the exact protocol you should be on. However, given your hitherto response to stimulation, I think you do have DOR.
In my opinion, the protocol used for ovarian stimulation, against the backdrop of age, and ovarian reserve are the drivers of egg quality and egg quality is the most important factor affecting embryo “competency”.
Older women as well as those who (regardless of age) have diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) tend to produce fewer and less “competent” eggs, the main reason for reduced IVF success in such cases. The compromised outcome is largely due to the fact that such women tend to have increased LH biological activity which often results in excessive LH-induced ovarian testosterone production which in turn can have a deleterious effect on egg/embryo “competency”.
Certain ovarian stimulation regimes either promote excessive LH production (e.g. short agonist/Lupron- “flare” protocols, clomiphene and Letrozole), augment LH/hCG delivered through additional administration (e.g. high dosage menotropins such as Menopur), or fail to protect against body’s own/self-produced LH (e.g. late antagonist protocols where drugs such as Ganirelix/Cetrotide/Orgalutron that are first administered 6-7 days after ovarian stimulation has commenced).
I try to avoid using such protocols/regimes (especially) in older women and those with DOR, favoring instead the use of a modified, long pituitary down-regulation protocol (the agonist/antagonist conversion protocol-A/ACP) augmented by adding supplementary human growth hormone (HGH). I further recommend Staggered IVF with embryo banking of PGS (next generation gene sequencing/NGS)-normal blastocysts in such cases. This type of approach will in my opinion, optimize the chance of a viable pregnancy per embryo transfer procedure and provide an opportunity to capitalize on whatever residual ovarian reserve and egg quality still exists, allowing the chance to “make hay while the sun still shines”.
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.
•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
•Ovarian Stimulation for IVF using GnRH Antagonists: Comparing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion Protocol.(A/ACP) With the“Conventional” Antagonist Aproach
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•The “Biological Clock” and how it should Influence the Selection and Design of Ovarian Stimulation Protocols for IVF.
•Diagnosing and Treating Infertility due to Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR)
•Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in Older women and Women who have Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR): A Rational Basis for Selecting a Stimulation Protocol
•Human Growth Hormone Administration in IVF: Does it Enhances Egg/Embryo Quality and Outcome?
•The BCP: Does Launching a Cycle of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS). Coming off the BCP Compromise Response?
•Staggered IVF: An Excellent Option When. Advancing Age and Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) Reduces IVF Success Rate
•Embryo Banking/Stockpiling: Slows the “Biological Clock” and offers a Selective Alternative to IVF-Egg Donation.
•Preimplantation Genetic Testing (PGS) in IVF: It Should be Used Selectively and NOT be Routine.
•Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS) Using: Next Generation Gene Sequencing (NGS): Method of Choice.
•PGS in IVF: Are Some Chromosomally abnormal Embryos Capable of Resulting in Normal Babies and Being Wrongly Discarded?
•PGS and Assessment of Egg/Embryo “competency”: How Method, Timing and Methodology Could Affect Reliability
•Implications of “Empty Follicle Syndrome and “Premature Luteinization”
•Premature Luteinization (“the premature LH surge): Why it happens and how it can be prevented.
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.
Geoff Sher
Hi Dr Sher
I just did my second fet single embryo transfer today. PGS tested normal. I have 3 more normals on ice and 4 mosaics. My first fet failed embryo transfer was pgs tested as well. All my embryos are from donor eggs fertilised with my husbands sperm. I have mild endometriosis and thyroid antibodies. We had icsi done, my doctor has added intralipids, prednisone, medrol, aspirin 81mg, progesterone in castor oil shots, estrace 2mg 3 times a day as well as embryo glue added to this second transfer… I believe my first failure was due to an immune response as on day 5 post 5 day blastocyst transfer of a hatching embryo, I developed chills and a swollen lymp node in my neck. My doctor had agreed that maybe I had a virus thus affecting the embryo…he also said pgs doesnt test for everything. My donor is a proven donor 27 years old yielded 26 eggs 11 made it to day 5…I was wondering why pgs tested donor eggs would fail. And what are my chances of achieving a successful pregnancy with this sec9nd fet single embryo transfer?
Hello Dr. Sher, thank you so much for being such a wonderful resource! I am a 33 year old patient with PCOS and Hashimoto’s. I have undergone 1 fresh and 3 frozen cycles. My fresh cycle did not work, my first FET worked but was an aneuploid miscarriage, second FET was a euploid transfer and did not work, and third FET was a double euploid transfer and resulted in miscarriage. I have also recently had one natural “surprise” pregnancy which ended in a chemical pregnancy (so a total of three miscarriages one of which was confirmed euploid). I was recently tested for NK cell activity through the Millenova labs in Chicago and my activation came back at almost 17%. When they treated the sample with intralipids it only went down to 14% and 10% with IVIg. We are debating whether to try intralipids and steroids on me or move on to a gestational carrier. Is NK cell activity such as mine too aggressive to respond to treatment? Should we be concerned that my blood did not respond much in the lab sample to intralipids? Any insight is appreciated.
Please read below and you will understand why (in my opinion) testing for a therapeutic response to IL or IVIG is an exercise in futility. In my opinion there is little doubt that you have NK cell activation causing an immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID), the big question is whether it is autoimmune or alloimmune and this MUST be assessed. It is likely to be autoimmune but you cannot take this for granted because treatment differs in cases of alloimmune dysfunction (see below).
A. I have been struck by the fact that patients suspected of having an immunologic implantation dysfunction, frequently are all too often recommended to undergo the wrong testing, often performed in the wrong laboratories and/ or that the results reported are misinterpreted. This cause a great deal of unnecessary confusion and leads to over-treatment of some and detrimental withholding of required treatment of others.
•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
•A history of having miscarried a conceptus that, upon testing of products of conception, was found to be euploid (have a normal numerical chromosomal configuration.
•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 IL/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.
B. Between 2% and 5% of women of the childbearing age have reduced thyroid hormone activity (hypothyroidism). Women with hypothyroidism often manifest with reproductive failure i.e. infertility, unexplained (often repeated) IVF failure, or recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). The condition is 5-10 times more common in women than in men. In most cases hypothyroidism is caused by damage to the thyroid gland resulting from of thyroid autoimmunity (Hashimoto’s disease) caused by damage done to the thyroid gland by antithyroglobulin and antimicrosomal auto-antibodies.
The increased prevalence of hypothyroidism and thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) in women is likely the result of a combination of genetic factors, estrogen-related effects and chromosome X abnormalities. This having been said, there is significantly increased incidence of thyroid antibodies in non-pregnant women with a history of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss and thyroid antibodies can be present asymptomatically in women without them manifesting with overt clinical or endocrinologic evidence of thyroid disease. In addition, these antibodies may persist in women who have suffered from hyper- or hypothyroidism even after normalization of their thyroid function by appropriate pharmacological treatment. The manifestations of reproductive dysfunction thus seem to be linked more to the presence of thyroid autoimmunity (TAI) than to clinical existence of hypothyroidism and treatment of the latter does not routinely result in a subsequent improvement in reproductive performance.
It follows, that if antithyroid autoantibodies are associated with reproductive dysfunction they may serve as useful markers for predicting poor outcome in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technologies.
Some years back, I reported on the fact that 47% of women who harbor thyroid autoantibodies, regardless of the absence or presence of clinical hypothyroidism, have activated uterine natural killer cells (NKa) cells and cytotoxic lymphocytes (CTL) and that such women often present with reproductive dysfunction. We demonstrated that appropriate immunotherapy with IVIG or intralipid (IL) and steroids, subsequently often results in a significant improvement in reproductive performance in such cases.
The fact that almost 50% of women who harbor antithyroid antibodies do not have activated CTL/NK cells suggests that it is NOT the antithyroid antibodies themselves that cause reproductive dysfunction. The activation of CTL and NK cells that occurs in half of the cases with TAI is probably an epiphenomenon with the associated reproductive dysfunction being due to CTL/NK cell activation that damages the early “root system” (trophoblast) of the implanting embryo. We have shown that treatment of those women who have thyroid antibodies + NKa/CTL using IL/steroids, improves subsequent reproductive performance while women with thyroid antibodies who do not harbor NKa/CTL do not require or benefit from such treatment.
Whenever a patient fails to achieve a viable pregnancy following embryo transfer (ET), the first question asked is why! Was it simply due to, bad luck?, How likely is the failure to recur in future attempts and what can be done differently, to avoid it happening next time?.
It is an indisputable fact that any IVF procedure is at least as likely to fail as it is to succeed. Thus when it comes to outcome, luck is an undeniable factor. Notwithstanding, it is incumbent upon the treating physician to carefully consider and address the causes of IVF failure before proceeding to another attempt:
1.Age: The chance of a woman under 35Y of age having a baby per embryo transfer is about 35-40%. From there it declines progressively to under 5% by the time she reaches her mid-forties. This is largely due to declining chromosomal integrity of the eggs with advancing age…”a wear and tear effect” on eggs that are in the ovaries from birth.
2.Embryo Quality/”competency (capable of propagating a viable pregnancy)”. As stated, the woman’s age plays a big role in determining egg/embryo quality/”competency”. This having been said, aside from age the protocol used for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is the next most important factor. It is especially important when it comes to older women, and women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) where it becomes essential to be aggressive, and to customize and individualize the ovarian stimulation protocol.
We used to believe that the uterine environment is more beneficial to embryo development than is the incubator/petri dish and that accordingly, the earlier on in development that embryos are transferred to the uterus, the better. To achieve this goal, we used to select embryos for transfer based upon their day two or microscopic appearance (“grade”). But we have since learned that the further an embryo has advanced in its development, the more likely it is to be “competent” and that embryos failing to reach the expanded blastocyst stage within 5-6 days of being fertilized are almost invariably “incompetent” and are unworthy of being transferred. Moreover, the introduction into clinical practice about a decade ago, (by Levent Keskintepe PhD and myself) of Preimplantation Genetic Sampling (PGS), which assesses for the presence of all the embryos chromosomes (complete chromosomal karyotyping), provides another tool by which to select the most “competent” embryos for transfer. This methodology has selective benefit when it comes to older women, women with DOR, cases of unexplained repeated IVF failure and women who experience recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
3.The number of the embryos transferred: Most patients believe that the more embryos transferred the greater the chance of success. To some extent this might be true, but if the problem lies with the use of a suboptimal COS protocol, transferring more embryos at a time won’t improve the chance of success. Nor will the transfer of a greater number of embryos solve an underlying embryo implantation dysfunction (anatomical molecular or immunologic).Moreover, the transfer of multiple embryos, should they implant, can and all too often does result in triplets or greater (high order multiples) which increases the incidence of maternal pregnancy-induced complications and of premature delivery with its serious risks to the newborn. It is for this reason that I rarely recommend the transfer of more than 2 embryos at a time and am moving in the direction of advising single embryo transfers …especially when it comes to transferring embryos derived through the fertilization of eggs from young women.
4.Implantation Dysfunction (ID): Implantation dysfunction is a very common (often overlooked) cause of “unexplained” IVF failure. This is especially the case in young ovulating women who have normal ovarian reserve and have fertile partners. Failure to identify, typify, and address such issues is, in my opinion, an unfortunate and relatively common cause of repeated IVF failure in such women. Common sense dictates that if ultrasound guided embryo transfer is performed competently and yet repeated IVF attempts fail to propagate a viable pregnancy, implantation dysfunction must be seriously considered. Yet ID is probably the most overlooked factor. The most common causes of implantation dysfunction are:
a.A“ thin uterine lining”
b.A uterus with surface lesions in the cavity (polyps, fibroids, scar tissue)
c.Immunologic implantation dysfunction (IID)
d.Endocrine/molecular endometrial receptivity issues
Certain causes of infertility are repetitive and thus cannot readily be reversed. Examples include advanced age of the woman; severe male infertility; immunologic infertility associated with alloimmune implantation dysfunction (especially if it is a “complete DQ alpha genetic match between partners plus uterine natural killer cell activation (NKa).
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.
•Ovarian Stimulation in Women Who have Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR): Introducing the Agonist/Antagonist Conversion protocol
•Anti Mullerian Hormone (AMH) Measurement to Assess Ovarian Reserve and Design the Optimal Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) in IVF.
•Human Growth Hormone Administration in IVF: Does it Enhances Egg/Embryo Quality and Outcome?
•The BCP: Does Launching a Cycle of Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS). Coming off the BCP Compromise Response?
•Blastocyst Embryo Transfers Should be the Standard of Care in IVF
•IVF: How Many Attempts should be considered before Stopping?
•“Unexplained” Infertility: Often a matter of the Diagnosis Being Overlooked!
•IVF Failure and Implantation Dysfunction:
•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
•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!
•Endometrial Thickness, Uterine Pathology and Immunologic Factors
•Vaginally Administered Viagra is Often a Highly Effective Treatment to Help Thicken a Thin Uterine Lining
•Treating Out-of-State and Out-of-Country Patients at Sher-IVF in Las Vegas:
•A personalized, stepwise approach to IVF
•How Many Embryos should be transferred: A Critical Decision in IVF.
•The Role of Nutritional Supplements in Preparing for IVF
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.
Hi – I had 1 IVF baby, and then had adhesions in my uterus, fixed by hysteroscopy after my first pregnancy. I went on to conceive a second baby. Before undergoing FET for a third baby, we did a saline sonogram and found the adhesions again. Did a hysteroscopy, successfully removed them. Now I’ve failed a few FET. The lining is around 8.5 mm, and the cavity is normal again. How important are the 2 adhesions surgeries to decreasing my chances?
I really would need to have more information to comment reliably. However provisionally it sounds as if you have an anatomical implantation dysfunction.
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.
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.
•IVF Failure and Implantation Dysfunction:
•Endometrial Thickness, Uterine Pathology and Immunologic Factors
•Vaginally Administered Viagra is Often a Highly Effective Treatment to Help Thicken a Thin Uterine Lining
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.