Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of intrauterine PRP infusion in managing recurrent implantation failure (RIF) remains controversial despite its emerging clinical use. This systematic review aims to evaluate its therapeutic potential in RIF patients and further to investigate variations in outcomes based on transfer cycle type, embryo developmental stage, RIF diagnostic criteria, and endometrial thickness. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating PRP treatment for RIF patients from the beginning of the database to May 2025. RESULTS: This meta-analysis showed that PRP administration significantly improved clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) [OR = 3.18, 95%CI (2.45, 4.14), I(2) = 3%], biochemical pregnancy rate (BPR) [OR = 2.84, 95%CI (2.22, 3.63), I(2) = 0%], ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) [OR = 3.41, 95%CI (2.08, 5.60), I(2) = 30%] and live birth rate (LBR) [OR=5.10, 95%CI (1.95, 13.37), I(2) = 75%] in women with RIF. However, PRP intrauterine infusion did not reduce miscarriage rate (MR). Notably, the preterm birth rate was significantly higher in the PRP group compared to controls [OR = 8.24, 95%CI (2.09, 32.41), I(2) = 0%]. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that PRP improved CPR, BPR and LBR in both the fresh and frozen embryo transfer cycles. Additionally, while PRP increased CPR, LBR and reduced MR in blastocyst transfers [CPR OR = 3.84, 95%CI (2.82, 5.23), I(2) = 0%; LBR OR = 7.32, 95%CI (3.17, 16.90), I(2) = 63%; MR OR = 0.27, 95%CI (0.07, 0.96), I(2) = 54%], these effects were not observed in cleavage-stage embryo transfers. Moreover, PRP administration associated with a higher CPR [OR = 3.84, 95%CI (2.82, 5.23), I(2) = 0%], OPR[OR = 4.13, 95%CI (1.79, 9.56), I(2) = 48%], LBR [OR = 7.32, 95%CI (3.17, 16.90), I(2) = 63%] and a lower MR [OR = 0.27, 95%CI (0.07, 0.96), I(2) = 54%] in women with ≥3 prior implantation failure, it did not confer the same benefit to those with a history of ≥2 failed cycles. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest a possible beneficial role for PRP on pregnancy outcomes to some extent in women with RIF, particularly in cases with ≥3 prior failed transfers, and blastocyst transfer may increase LBR and reduce miscarriage risk. However, further investigation is warranted to determine whether this treatment may pose an increased risk of preterm birth. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251061511.