Skip to main content
. 2021 Jan 18;11:532692. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.532692

Table 4.

Comparison of endometrial receptivity parameters among the four groups.

Parameters No pregnancy group (n=72) Biochemical pregnancy group (n=51) Clinical pregnancy group (n=39) Ongoing pregnancy group (n=34) P valuea
Ultrasonic parameters
 Uterine PI 2.2 ± 0.5 2.1 ± 0.5 2.0 ± 0.6 2.1 ± 0.7 0.587
 Uterine RI 0.8 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.2 0.324
 ET (mm) 9.6 ± 2.3 9.9 ± 2.9 10.2 ± 3.0 9.9 ± 2.8 0.225
 EV (cm3) 2.8 ± 0.8 2.9 ± 0.9 2.9 ± 0.8 3.0 ± 0.9 0.210
 VI (%) 1.5 ± 0.6 2.2 ± 0.8 2.5 ± 0.8 2.9 ± 0.9★▲ 0.044
 FI (0-100) 14.4 ± 4.7 20.5 ± 5.1 23.8 ± 5.7 28.6 ± 5.9★▲ 0.036
 VFI (0-100) 0.2 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.2 0.6 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.4★▲ 0.017
Biomarkers (pg/mL)
 Integrin αvβ3 11.2 ± 3.9 26.8 ± 7.3 32.6 ± 7.4 40.3 ± 10.2★▲ 0.015
 VEGF 16.7 ± 5.1 29.5 ± 9.4 41.5 ± 10.9 50.2 ± 11.5★▲ 0.020

Data given as mean ± SD. aVariance analysis among the three groups. Vs. no pregnancy group, P<0.05. Vs. biochemical pregnancy group, P<0.05.