Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) or Asherman syndrome refer to the formation of filmy or dense fibrous bands within the uterine cavity. These are frequently occurred after mechanical or infectious injury to the basal layer of endometrium [1, 2]. IUAs were first described by Heinrich Fritsch in 1894 [17]. The pooled prevalence of IUAs was reported to be 19% in a meta-analysis, however, it varies between different populations and by the injury types [2, 18]. The exact mechanism of IUAs remains elusive, possibly involves hypoxia, impaired neovascularization, and abnormal expression of adhesion-associated cytokines [1]. IUAs can be asymptomatic but often lead to menstrual and fertility disfunctions, and the pregnancy results are inversely correlated with the severity of disease [18].
It is generally accepted that moderate to severe IUAs are usually associated with poor fecundability and adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Schenker and Margalioth reported a 41% prevalence of infertility and only 45.5% spontaneous conception rate in a large cohort with untreated IUAs. Of those, 40% suffered spontaneous miscarriage, 23% preterm delivery, 13% placenta accrete, and 12% ectopic pregnancy [19]. In our study, the overall clinical pregnancy rate of IUAs was 43.88%, the live birth rate was 31.75%, and the early miscarriage rate was 20.67%. However, in those combined with thin endometrium, the clinical pregnancy rate was 25.62%, live birth rate was 13.30%, and early miscarriage rate was 36.54%. Our results were in line with the previous studies [4, 20].
Hysteroscopic surgery to remove IUAs followed by reproductive assistance technology has become the most effective treatment for good pregnancy outcomes [21]. It is well recognized that successful implantation relies on a properly developed blastocyst, a receptive endometrium, and synchrony of these factors. Evidence works out that the expression of certain membrane-bound, soluble, and secretory factors transforms the endometrium from the nonreceptive to the receptive state and supports embryo attachment. Factors expressed during this temporal window are considered as receptivity biomarkers, including pinopodes, integrin b3, leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF), expression of homeobox genes HOXA 10 and HOXA 11 [22, 23]. Most of these molecules are regulated by a hormonal and paracrine manner. In IUAs, the impaired endometrium may loss responses to the ovarian steroids and fail to produce these protective molecules, therefore present as defective endometrial receptivity.
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first one to explore the best cycle regimen in patients with history of IUAs. In FET, endometrium receptivity is achieved by dedicated endometrial preparation protocols, which can largely be divided into natural and hormone replacing cycles. In NC, the sequential estrogen and P required for endometrial maturation are derived from the developing follicle, and the timing of embryo transfer depends on the identification of spontaneous luteinizing hormone (LH) surge or hCG triggering. NC provides a more physiologic milieu for embryo implantation. However, premature ovulation may occur with elevated P levels, resulting in deleterious effect on endometrial receptivity [24]. In HRT, exogenous estrogen and P are sequentially administered to mimic natural endometrial growth and achieve an appropriate implantation window. HRT with GnRH-a pretreatment is performed to minimize the risk the spontaneous follicle development and offers the most control over the timing, though the cycle is much more prolonged and expensive.
An optimal protocol of endometrial preparation may improve pregnancy outcomes in FET. To date, there is insufficient evidence to support the superiority of one approach over another in general population [25, 26]. An adequate thickness of endometrium is indispensable for a successful pregnancy, especially in IUAs. Utilization of exogenous estrogen is effective to increase endometrial thickness during the hyperplasia period [27], HRT cycles to prepare the endometrium is therefore recommended as the preference of choice in IUAs. Our study demonstrated that endometrial preparation by HRT with GnRH-a pretreatment is superior to NC and conventional HRT protocols in IUAs. Indeed, one prospective randomized trial conducted by El-Toukhy T and coworkers found that compared to conventional HRT, pretreatment with GnRH-a achieved significantly higher clinical pregnancy (24% vs 11.3%, OR 2.5, 95%CI 1.2–5.5) and live birth rates (20% vs 8.5%, OR 2.9, 95%CI 1.2-8) in non-selected patients [28]. Recently, a multicenter retrospective cohort study also revealed that HRT with GnRH-a pretreatment appears to be superior to HRT without GnRH-a, regarding the live birth rate and miscarriage rate [29]. Animal study suggests that GnRH-a, but not GnRH antagonist, may restore uterine expression levels of key receptivity markers including Hoxa10, Hoxa11, Lif and integrin b3 mRNA and protein, as well as increase the abundance and development of pinopodes, hence improve endometrial receptivity in adenomyosis [30, 31]. All these findings strengthen the evidence of GnRH-a pretreatment in improving intrauterine receptivity. Moreover, GnRH-a therapy was reported to suppress inflammation in endometriosis, adenomyosis and uterine myoma [32]. It is plausible that IUAs may be associated with chronic endometritis, and HRT with GnRH-a pretreatment may improve reproductive outcomes by curbing potential inflammatory reactions in IUAs.
IUAs combined with thin endometrium (< 7 or 8 mm) has been demonstrated to significantly decrease implantation and pregnancy rate [4, 33]. Guo Z and coworkers suggested that for women with a thin endometrium and were undergoing IVF, FET was associated with significantly higher incidences of live birth, clinical pregnancy, and biochemical pregnancy than in the fresh ET group [9]. Besides, it was showed that in ovarian stimulation cycles, GnRH-a prolonged protocol (one depot of 3.75 mg GnRH-a), instead of short GnRH-a long protocol (0.1mg of GnRH-a per day) was an effective treatment to improve endometrial receptivity in patients with medium (7 < EMT < 14mm), particularly thin endometrium (≤ 7 mm) [34, 35]. Unfortunately, there has been no similar analysis in FET cycles. In our study, subgroup analysis revealed that the pregnancy results were not significantly differ between groups, which may due to the small sample size of the subgroup. On the other hand, it is also possible that the receptivity state in IUAs combined with thin endometrial may no more be restored by GnRH-a.