Let’s talk about something we haven’t talked about yet—endometrial thickness

There are a number of studies that talk about endometrial thickness.  In a nutshell, the thicker the better:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17081537 - “Endometrial thickness was greater in cycles resulting in pregnancy than in cycles not resulting in pregnancy (11.9 vs. 11.3 mm, respectively). Clinical pregnancy rates increased gradually from 53% among patients with a lining of <9 mm, to 77% among patients with a lining of > or =16 mm”

That article we discussed the other day (on measurements) also opined that bigger, fluffier lining is better:

http://www.gfmer.ch/Books/Reproductive_health/Monitoring_IVF.html - “Grade I was characterized by homogenous echogenicity of the endometrium, while grade II was characterized by an outer peripheral layer of dense echogenicity surrounding a central sonolucent area (halo pattern). Grades I and II were subclassified into group A (>9 mm thick) and group B (<9 mm). Grade IIA was optimal, as it was associated with a clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer of 33% while the other three groups were poor as they were associated with a rate of 7% only. Women aged 41-45 years experienced a 25% incidence of poor sonographic grades compared to only 5% incidence in women <40 years.” 

Yikes, that lining really matters!  This cycle they said I had an 11B.  Reading those two articles makes me think I would hesitate to do a transfer with a bad lining… although I’d have to trust my doctor’s recommendation on that front.  And boy-o-boy getting old is a bitch.  Bad eggs.  Bad lining.  Geez!