A retrospective analysis of endometrial receptivity array-personalized embryo transfer and its outcome among women with implantation failure

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether personalized embryo transfer guided by endometrial receptivity array (ERA) improves implantation and pregnancy rates in women with implantation failure.

Methods: This retrospective case-control study was conducted on women with previous implantation failure. The women were divided into two groups, i.e, women who underwent ERA and those who underwent embryo transfer without ERA testing. ERA was performed using Igenomix. ERA results were interpreted as receptive or non-receptive. Women underwent frozen embryo transfer on the 6th day of progesterone (P+5). The primary outcomes were implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and negative pregnancy rate.

Results: This study included 229 women with previous implantation failure, with 154 in the ERA group and 75 in the no ERA group. The mean age of the women of the ERA group was (32.2±4.1) years, and that of the no ERA group was (31.5±4.8) years. Women in the ERA group had a higher implantation rate (60.4%) and clinical pregnancy rate (57.1%) compared to those in the no ERA group (48.0% and 46.7%, respectively). In addition, implantation rate of the nonreceptive ERA group was higher than the no ERA group (65% vs. 48%), and clinical pregnancy rate was also higher in the non-receptive ERA group than the no ERA group (65% vs. 47%). The abortion rate of the no ERA group was 9% and that of the non-receptive ERA group was 10%. 52% no ERA group women and 35% non-receptive ERA group women had negative pregnancy results.

Conclusions: Women who have undergone personalised embryo transfer guided by ERA have a higher clinical pregnancy rate than women who have not after previous implantation failure.

Keywords

Endometrial receptivity array / Window of implantation / Personalized embryo transfer / Implantation failure / In-vitro fertilization

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the technical support in data entry, analysis, and manuscript editing by “coGuide academy”.

Funding

The study received no extramural funding.

Authors’ contributions

Dr Asha S Vijay made substantial contributions to the conceptualization of the study, critically reviewed the study and performed the final revision of the manuscript. Dr Raajam Murali SR contributed to the study design, supervised the data-collection process, and critically reviewed the study. Dr Pallavi R Gangatkar was responsible for data collection, drafted the manuscript, and performed the literature review. Dr Deepthi Venkatesh assisted in the literature review and contributed to the drafting and formatting of the manuscript. Dr Shweta Ashok Harnal supported the literature review and helped draft and format the manuscript. Dr Tanvi Khandekar conducted the statistical analysis and prepared the tables. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Publisher’ s Note

The Publisher of the Journal remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

[1] WHO. Infertility prevalence estimates, 1990-2021. World Health Organization. 2023. [Online] Available from:https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978920068315 [Accessed 12 December 2025].

[2] Martín J, Domínguez F, Ávila S, Castrillo JL, Remohí J, Pellicer A, et al. Human endometrial receptivity: Gene regulation. J Reprod Immunol 2002; 55(1): 131-139.

[3] ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure, Cimadomo D, de Los Santos MJ, Griesinger G, Lainas G, Le Clef N, et al. ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure. Hum Reprod Open 2023; 2023(3): hoad023.

[4] Rubin SC, Abdulkadir M, Lewis J, Harutyunyan A, Hirani R, Grimes CL. Review of endometrial receptivity array: A personalized approach to embryo transfer and its clinical applications. J Pers Med 2023; 13(5): 749.

[5] Whitby S, Zhou W, Dimitriadis E. Alterations in epithelial cell polarity during endometrial receptivity: A systematic review. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2020; 11: 596324.

[6] Paria BC, Song H, Dey SK. Implantation: Molecular basis of embryo-uterine dialogue. Int J Dev Biol 2001; 45(3): 597-605.

[7] Harper MJ. The implantation window. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 6(2): 351-371.

[8] Edwards RG. Human implantation: The last barrier in assisted reproduction technologies? Reprod Biomed Online 2006; 13(6): 887-904.

[9] Kliman HJ, Frankfurter D. Clinical approach to recurrent implantation failure: Evidence-based evaluation of the endometrium. Fertil Steril 2019; 111(4): 618-628.

[10] Mahajan N. Endometrial receptivity array: Clinical application. J Hum Reprod Sci 2015; 8(3): 121-129.

[11] Amin J, Patel R, JayeshAmin G, Gomedhikam J, Surakala S, Kota M. Personalized embryo transfer outcomes in recurrent implantation failure patients following endometrial receptivity array with pre-implantation genetic testing. Cureus 2022; 14(6): e26248.

[12] BDSS corp. coGuide. Research enablement and productivity platform (REAP), version 2.0. Released 2022, India. [Online] Available from:https://reapv2.coguide.in/ [Accessed 12 December 2025].

[13] Bergin K, Eliner Y, Duvall DW, Roger S, Elguero S, Penzias AS, et al. The use of propensity score matching to assess the benefit of the endometrial receptivity analysis in frozen embryo transfers. Fertil Steril 2021; 116(2): 396-403.

[14] Riestenberg C, Kroener L, Quinn M, Ching K, Ambartsumyan G. Routine endometrial receptivity array in first embryo transfer cycles does not improve live birth rate. Fertil Steril 2021; 115(4): 1001-1006.

[15] Bahgat NA, Said W. Personalized embryo transfer after endometrial receptivity array test in patients with recurrent unexplained implantation failure. Int J Reprod Contrac Obstet Gynecol 2022; 11(3): 657-663.

[16] Ruiz-Alonso M, Blesa D, Díaz-Gimeno P, Gómez E, Fernández-Sánchez M, Carranza F, et al. The endometrial receptivity array for diagnosis and personalized embryo transfer as a treatment for patients with repeated implantation failure. Fertil Steril 2013; 100(3): 818-824.

[17] Tan J, Kan A, Hitkari J, Taylor B, Tallon N, Warraich G, et al. The role of the endometrial receptivity array (ERA) in patients who have failed euploid embryo transfers. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018; 35(4): 683-692.

[18] Cozzolino M, Diáz-Gimeno P, Pellicer A, Garrido N. Use of the endometrial receptivity array to guide personalized embryo transfer after a failed transfer attempt was associated with a lower cumulative and per transfer live birth rate during donor and autologous cycles. Fertil Steril 2022; 118(4): 724-736.

[19] Liu Z, Liu X, Wang M, Zhao H, He S, Lai S, et al. The clinical efficacy of personalized embryo transfer guided by the endometrial receptivity array/analysis on IVF/ICSI outcomes: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Front Physiol 2022; 13: 841437.

[20] Arian SE, Hessami K, Khatibi A, To AK, Shamshirsaz AA, Gibbons W. Endometrial receptivity array before frozen embryo transfer cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2023; 119(2): 229-238.