Author, year | Study design | Population | Sample size | Reproductive outcomes | Secondary outcomes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Kim et al. (2019) [34] | Prospective interventional study | Patients with history of ≥ 2 failed IVF cycles and refractory thin endometrium (< 7 mm). | 24 patients were compared against their previous cycles | PRP improved implantation, pregnancy and live birth rates in comparison to their previous cycles. | |
Chang et al. (2019) [33] | Prospective interventional study | Patients with thin endometrium < 7 mm and prior canceled FET. | 34 in PRP group and 30 in control. | PRP had higher ET and lower cancellation rate. Higher implantation and clinical pregnancy rate in favor of PRP (27.94% vs 11.67%, P < .05; 44.12% vs 20%, P < .05, respectively). | Higher levels of PDGF-AB, PDGF-BB, and TGF-βin favor of PRP group in comparison to peripheral blood. |
Eftekhar et al. (2018) [35] | Randomized clinical trial | Women with poor endometrial response to standard hormonal preparation (ET < 7 mm in the 13th day of FET cycle | 40 in PRP and 43 in control | PRP higher ET (0.001), implantation (P = 0.002) and pregnancy rate (P = 0.044). | |
Wang et al. (2018) | Prospective interventional study | Patients with recurrent implantation failure due to suboptimal endometrial pattern, women with ≥ 2 canceled cycles due to thin endometrial lining | 20 patients were compared to their previous data | Successful endometrial expansion after PRP (5.55 ± 0.71 mm vs 7.82 ± 1.04 mm, P < 0.001, for pre- and post-PRP respectively). Pregnancy was positive in 12 cases after PRP infusion (60%).. | In vitro analysis demonstrated that PRP significantly increased growth, migration, and adhesion of endometrial mesenchymal stem cells. |