Skip to main content
MedVellum
QuestionsVideosPricing

MedVellum

Fellowship exam preparation across every specialty: source-verified topics, questions in every format, and videos.

Product

  • Specialties
  • Questions
  • Videos
  • Exam tools
  • Pricing

Verification & policy

  • Verified register
  • Editorial policy
  • Privacy
  • Terms

Account

  • Sign in
  • Create account
  • Dashboard
  • Account & billing

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

llms.txtPsychiatry LLM catalogSitemap

O&G TopicsReproductive endocrinology & infertility

O&G · Reproductive endocrinology & infertility

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and ART adjuncts — definition, the ESHRE good practice recommendations, endometrial receptivity, and the PGT-A controversy

Also known as Recurrent implantation failure · Repeated implantation failure · RIF · ART adjuncts · IVF add-ons · PGT-A · Endometrial receptivity analysis · Endometrial scratch

Exam-exhaustive FRANZCOG fellowship reference on recurrent implantation failure and ART adjuncts — the ESHRE 2023 good practice recommendations and the 60 per cent cumulative-chance definition, the Coughlan and Polanski older definitions, the window of implantation and ERA, the Cochrane 2026 endometrial-scratch review, and the PGT-A controversy (STAR, ESTEEM, Cochrane, ASRM 2024, Gleicher, Lensen 2025). Anchored to the ESHRE RIF and add-ons GPRs and the Cimadomo 2023 'black box of implantation' meta-analysis.

high20 referencesUpdated 1 Aug 202613 min readVerification in progress

Practise this topic

  • 8 MCQs

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic8 MCQs with explanations

Target exams

FRANZCOGMRCOGABOGFRCSCMRCPI

Red flags

  • A patient labelled RIF on a fixed embryo-count rule who has not had her cumulative predicted chance of implantation calculated — ESHRE 2023 moved away from a fixed count to a 60 per cent cumulative-chance threshold
  • A patient offered an ART adjunct at out-of-pocket cost without disclosure that 95 per cent of ESHRE add-on recommendations rest on low-quality or consensus evidence
  • A euploid embryo transfer that fails — a euploid blastocyst has a positive predictive value for implantation of only 50 to 60 per cent (Cimadomo 2023); failure does not mean the diagnosis is wrong
  • Routine PGT-A offered as a fertility booster — STAR and ESTEEM found no overall live-birth benefit in good-prognosis patients, and the ASRM 2024 committee opinion states routine use is not demonstrated
  • Routine endometrial scratching offered before IVF — the Cochrane 2026 review found the effect on live birth unclear
  • Discarding mosaic embryos without counselling — mosaicism false positives can lead to discarding of potentially viable embryos (Gleicher 2017; Lensen 2025)
On this page
Study tools

Your progress

Saved on this device.

Practise this topic8 MCQs with explanations

Target exams

FRANZCOGMRCOGABOGFRCSCMRCPI

Red flags

  • A patient labelled RIF on a fixed embryo-count rule who has not had her cumulative predicted chance of implantation calculated — ESHRE 2023 moved away from a fixed count to a 60 per cent cumulative-chance threshold
  • A patient offered an ART adjunct at out-of-pocket cost without disclosure that 95 per cent of ESHRE add-on recommendations rest on low-quality or consensus evidence
  • A euploid embryo transfer that fails — a euploid blastocyst has a positive predictive value for implantation of only 50 to 60 per cent (Cimadomo 2023); failure does not mean the diagnosis is wrong
  • Routine PGT-A offered as a fertility booster — STAR and ESTEEM found no overall live-birth benefit in good-prognosis patients, and the ASRM 2024 committee opinion states routine use is not demonstrated
  • Routine endometrial scratching offered before IVF — the Cochrane 2026 review found the effect on live birth unclear
  • Discarding mosaic embryos without counselling — mosaicism false positives can lead to discarding of potentially viable embryos (Gleicher 2017; Lensen 2025)
One-line fellowship answer

Recurrent implantation failure is defined in the ESHRE 2023 good practice recommendations as the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often that the cumulative predicted chance of implantation exceeds 60 per cent — a secondary phenomenon of ART, not a primary disease. Investigate the structural and modifiable causes first, then apply each adjunct by its ESHRE evidence tier (green, orange, red): PGT-A shows no overall live-birth benefit in good-prognosis patients (STAR, ESTEEM, Cochrane), the endometrial scratch shows no reliable benefit (Cochrane 2026), and 95 per cent of add-on recommendations rest on low-quality or consensus evidence.[1][2][13]

It is Wednesday afternoon, and a 36-year-old woman sits in front of you with a folder of four failed frozen embryo transfers and a printed list of add-ons she found online — embryo glue, endometrial scratch, PGT-A, intralipid, PRP. She has spent a great deal of money and has a great deal of grief. Your job is not to add another invoice; it is to reframe her care around the ESHRE good practice recommendations, calculate her real cumulative chance, treat the evidence-based causes, and refuse to sell her interventions that the evidence does not support. This topic is that reframe.[1][2]

Overview and definition

RIF is the failure of apparently viable embryos to implant after enough transfers that further investigation is warranted. The defining question has always been "how many failed transfers counts as RIF?" — and the answer has moved.[1]

The ESHRE 2023 good practice recommendation reframes RIF as a secondary phenomenon of ART, and adopts this description: "RIF describes the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered to be viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often in a specific patient to warrant consideration of further investigations and/or interventions." The working group recommends a cumulative predicted chance of implantation threshold of 60 per cent: when a couple has not achieved implantation by a certain number of transfers and the cumulative predicted chance associated with that number is greater than 60 per cent, further investigation is warranted.[1]

This replaced older fixed-count definitions. Coughlan 2014 defined RIF as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after transfer of at least four good-quality embryos in a minimum of three fresh or frozen cycles in a woman under 40. Polanski 2014, after a systematic review, proposed absence of implantation after two consecutive cycles where the cumulative number of transferred embryos was no less than four cleavage-stage or no less than two blastocysts, all of good quality. Polanski also named RIF an iatrogenic condition — the result of repetitive unsuccessful IVF or ICSI cycles.[3][4]

DEFER — the ESHRE-aligned RIF workup

DEFER

  • DDefinition firstcalculate cumulative predicted chance; ESHRE threshold is 60%
  • EExclude structuralultrasound and hysteroscopy for cavity; hydrosalpinx
  • FFix modifiablesmoking, obesity (lowers euploid live birth), transfer technique
  • EEvidence-tier adjunctsgreen, orange, red by ESHRE add-ons GPR
  • RRefuse to selldecline unproven adjuncts; shared decision-making; donor gametes when appropriate
[1] [2]
Obstetrics & Gynaecology Pro

Continue reading

You have read the opening of this topic. The complete unit — every section and its primary-source references — is part of the Obstetrics & Gynaecology fellowship library.

Sign in to continueSee pricing
References20ShowHide
  1. [1]Cimadomo D, de Los Santos MJ, Griesinger G, et al. ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure Hum Reprod Open, 2023.PMID 37332387
  2. [2]Lundin K, Bentzen JG, Bozdag G, et al. Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine Hum Reprod, 2023.PMID 37747409
  3. [3]Coughlan C, Ledger W, Wang Q, et al. Recurrent implantation failure: definition and management Reprod Biomed Online, 2014.PMID 24269084
  4. [4]Polanski LT, Baumgarten MN, Quenby S, et al. What exactly do we mean by 'recurrent implantation failure'? A systematic review and opinion Reprod Biomed Online, 2014.PMID 24581986
  5. [5]Cimadomo D, Rienzi L, Conforti A, et al. Opening the black box: why do euploid blastocysts fail to implant? A systematic review and meta-analysis Hum Reprod Update, 2023.PMID 37192834
  6. [6]Munné S, Kaplan B, Frattarelli JL, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy versus morphology as selection criteria for single frozen-thawed embryo transfer in good-prognosis patients: a multicenter randomized clinical trial Fertil Steril, 2019.PMID 31551155
  7. [7]Verpoest W, Staessen C, Bossuyt PM, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy by microarray analysis of polar bodies in advanced maternal age: a randomized clinical trial Hum Reprod, 2018.PMID 30085138
  8. [8]Pagliardini L, Viganò P, Alteri A, et al. Shooting STAR: reinterpreting the data from the 'Single Embryo TrAnsfeR of Euploid Embryo' randomized clinical trial Reprod Biomed Online, 2020.PMID 32273162
  9. [9]Hyttel CB, Løssl K, Wang NF, et al. The effect of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) on obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis Hum Reprod, 2026.PMID 41966094
  10. [10]Cornelisse S, Zagers M, Kostova E, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (abnormal number of chromosomes) in in vitro fertilisation Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020.PMID 32898291
  11. [11]Lensen S, Cedars MI, Mastenbroek S From innovation to practice: evaluating the evidence for preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy Fertil Steril, 2025.PMID 41106955
  12. [12]Gleicher N, Orvieto R Is the hypothesis of preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) still supportable? A review J Ovarian Res, 2017.PMID 28347334
  13. [13]Practice Committees of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology The use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a committee opinion Fertil Steril, 2024.PMID 38762806
  14. [14]Simón C, Gómez C, Cabanillas S, et al. A 5-year multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing personalized, frozen and fresh blastocyst transfer in IVF Reprod Biomed Online, 2020.PMID 32723696
  15. [15]Ruiz-Alonso M, Valbuena D, Gomez C, et al. Endometrial Receptivity Analysis (ERA): data versus opinions Hum Reprod Open, 2021.PMID 33880420
  16. [16]Perera AK, Gan J, Afroz A, et al. Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2026.PMID 42138348
  17. [17]Busnelli A, Somigliana E, Cirillo F, et al. Efficacy of therapies and interventions for repeated embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis Sci Rep, 2021.PMID 33462292
  18. [18]He Y, Tang R, Yu H, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of 36 therapies or interventions for pregnancy outcomes with recurrent implantation failure: a systematic review and network meta-analysis J Assist Reprod Genet, 2023.PMID 37661207
  19. [19]Singh N, Davis AA, Kumar S, et al. The effect of administration of intravenous intralipid on pregnancy outcomes in women with implantation failure after IVF/ICSI with non-donor oocytes: A randomised controlled trial Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2019.PMID 31228675
  20. [20]Coughlan C, Clarke H, Cutting R, et al. Sperm DNA fragmentation, recurrent implantation failure and recurrent miscarriage Asian J Androl, 2015.PMID 25814156

Test yourself

Practise what you just read

  • 8 MCQs
Obstetrics & Gynaecology Pro

$29/ monthor $279 / year

The complete Obstetrics & Gynaecology library, every exam format, one subscription.

  • Complete library for one chosen specialty
  • Timed MCQ mock exams and spaced review
  • Clinical cases & cross-table vivas
See pricingSign in
PreviousPelvic-factor infertility: tubal patency (HyCoSy, HSG, laparoscopy), endometriosis, adhesions, and submucous fibroidsReproductive endocrinology & infertilityNextTubal-factor infertility and tubal surgeryReproductive endocrinology & infertility