Endometrial Scratch Injury Induces Higher Pregnancy Rate for Women With Unexplained Infertility Undergoing IUI With Ovarian Stimulation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Optimizing intrauterine insemination: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of clinical treatment add-ons

INTRODUCTION

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most widespread fertility treatments. However, IUI protocols vary significantly amongst fertility clinics. Various add-on interventions have been proposed to boost success rates. These are mostly chosen arbitrarily or empirically. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness and safety of add-on interventions to the standard IUI protocol and to provide evidence-based recommendations on techniques used to optimize the clinical outcomes of IUI treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analyses were performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A computerized literature search was performed from database inception to May 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included reporting on couples/single women undergoing IUI with any protocol for any indication using partner's or donor sperm. A meta-analysis based on random effects was performed for each outcome and add-on. Three authors independently assessed the trials for quality and risk of bias and overall certainty of evidence. Uncertainties were resolved through consensus. Primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) or live birth rate (LBR) per cycle/per woman randomized. Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42022300857.

RESULTS

Sixty-six RCTs were included in the analysis (16 305 participants across 20 countries). Vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in stimulated cycles was found to significantly increase LBR/OPR (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09-1.72, I2 = 4.9%) (moderate/low certainty of the evidence). Endometrial scratch prior/during stimulated IUI cycles may increase LBR/OPR (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.03-2.01, I2 = 1.8%), but evidence is very uncertain. Results from two studies suggest that follicular phase ovarian stimulation increases LBR/OPR (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.00-1.94, I2 = 0%) (low certainty of evidence). No significant difference was seen for the primary outcome for the other studied interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that vaginal luteal phase progesterone support probably improves LBR/OPR in stimulated IUI treatments. In view of moderate/low certainty of the evidence more research is needed for solid conclusions. Further research is also recommended for the use of endometrial scratch and ovarian stimulation. Future studies should report on results according to subfertility background as it is possible that different add-ons could benefit specific patient groups.

The impact of endometrial scratch performed in mid-luteal phase on the endometrium whole genome transcriptomic profiles in following menstrual cycle

The value of endometrial scratch in women with recurrent embryo transfer has been controversial. Endometrial scratch is often performed in the mid-luteal phase of the cycle preceding embryo transfer but there is little scientific evidence if it affects the whole genome transcriptomic profile of peri-implantation endometrium in the following cycle. A prospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted in a university assisted reproductive unit. A total of eight women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) were included. Each participant had endometrial biopsy twice, first biopsy on day LH + 7 in natural cycle and second on day LH + 7 of the following cycle. R package was used to identify differentially expressed genes between the sample and enriched gene ontology. However, the paired sample showed no significant difference, neither known endometrial receptive gene set nor other genes, before and after the endometrial scratch. It suggests that endometrial scratch performed during previous mid-luteal phase did not affect the transcriptomic profiles of endometrium on day LH + 7 in women with RIF.

Immune Cell Functionality during Decidualization and Potential Clinical Application

Due to a vast influx in the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle, leukocytes represent 40-50% of the decidua at the time of implantation. Their importance for the implantation, maintenance of pregnancy, and parturition are known yet not fully understood. Thus, in idiopathic infertility, decidual immune-related factors are speculated to be the cause. In this review, the immune cell functions in the decidua were summarized, and clinical diagnostics, as well as interventions, were discussed. There is a rising number of commercially available diagnostic tools. However, the intervention options are still limited and/or poorly studied. In order for us to make big steps towards the proper use of reproductive immunology findings, we need to understand the mechanisms and especially support translational research.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs (3703 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

The Effect of Endometrial Scratch on Pregnancy Rate in Women with Previous Intrauterine Insemination Failure: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of endometrial scratch on the pregnancy rate among women with previous failed intrauterine insemination (IUI). A systematic search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI web of science from inception to November 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared endometrial scratch in the intervention group versus placebo or no intervention in the control group among infertile women with previous failure of IUI regarding different pregnancy outcomes. Revman software was utilized for performing our meta-analysis. Our main outcomes were biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates. Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 989 patients. We found endometrial scratch significantly improved the biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates in comparison with the control group among women with previous IUI failure (p < 0.001). Moreover, the live birth rate was significantly increased among the endometrial scratch group (RR = 2.00, 95% CI [1.20, 3.34], p = 0.008). In conclusion, endometrial scratch is effective in improving pregnancy outcomes among women with previous IUI failure. More trials are required to confirm our findings.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials.

SETTING

Sixteen UK fertility units.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m² and previous trauma to the endometrium.

INTERVENTIONS

Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs.

RESULTS

One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22).

LIMITATIONS

A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Endometrial scratch injury in infertile women seeking conception through natural or intrauterine insemination cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Implantation failure is a major cause of infertility. To evaluate the value of ESI in infertile women undergoing natural or IUI cycles.

METHODS

Screening of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, other bases from inception to June 2021 using the keywords related to endometrial scratch, implantation, infertility, and IUI. RCTs of intentional endometrial injury in couples seeking fertility through natural or IUI cycles were included. All types of ESI with variable intensity (mild to moderate or severe), at different times of the cycle (preceding follicular, preceding luteal, same follicular or two times), single or double compared to none, placebo or other active interventions were included. Twenty-five studies included 4234 women (five natural [774 women], 20 IUI [3460 women]) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Extracted data included settings of the study, sample size, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome parameters. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

ESI increased clinical pregnancy rate from 16.1% (62/386) to 26.5% (103/388) and from 11.4% (186/1627) to 22.25% (408/1833), P = 0.004 and <0.001 in natural and IUI cycles, respectively. ESI increased live birth rate from 26.6% (42/158) to 37.6% (59/157) (P = 0.250) and from 11.2% (36/322) to 18% (58/322) (P = 0.020) in natural and IUI cycles, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ESI increased both clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates significantly in natural and IUI cycles. However, there is marked methodological heterogeneity among the different studies in defining the outcome parameters.

The effect of endometrial scratching on pregnancy rate after failed intrauterine insemination: A Randomised Controlled Trail

INTRODUCTION

Endometrial injury (ES) has been suggested as intervention to increase probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies. Majority of studies reported that ES improves outcome in Invitro fertilisation,Intrauterine Insemination(IUI) and natural conceptions: however, the size and quality of studies are poor which questions the presence of any beneficial effect. The present study was done to evaluate the effect of endometrial scratching on pregnancy rate after previous failed Intrauterine Insemination and to assess the pain and bleeding following the procedure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Randomized controlled trial. One hundred sixty-eight women (Eighty-four in each group) with primary/secondary infertility were recruited and randomized into intervention and control group using block randomization. Intervention group underwent ES using pipelle's canula on D8 or D9 of menstrual cycle. Three cycles of ovulation induction with Clomiphene citrate and gonadotrophins followed by IUI was done. The primary end point was clinical pregnancy rate. Pain and bleeding after the procedure were evaluated as secondary outcomes.The study was conducted from June 2017 to June 2019.

MAIN RESULTS

The cumulative clinical pregnancy rate in ES group was 22.2 % in comparison 9.8 % in control group. In the intent to treat analysis, with a p value of 0.03 calculated from Chi-square test(p < 0.05) there was statistically significant difference in the pregnancy rate between Intervention and Control group. Efficacy of intervention was found to be Fourteen Percent (14 %). Fifty-one women (63 %) had marked a VAS pain score of 4-5 and Twelve women(12.2 %) experienced mild spotting post procedure. Two patients in ES group had miscarriage and no case of multiple pregnancy in both the groups.

CONCLUSION

Endometrial Scratching improves clinical pregnancy rate in patients with Unexplained infertility and mild male factor infertility with previous failed IUI cycles. ES will be an inexpensive alternative to IVF for couples after IUI failures especially in developing countries, with an acceptable pregnancy rate and does not demand any special qualification or equipment and can be trained easily in primary settings. Larger and adequately powered studies are needed to elucidate the beneficial effects of endometrial scratching on implantation.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs (4035 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Higher versus lower degree of intentional endometrial injury Evidence was insufficient to show whether there is a difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 332 participants; low-quality evidence) between hysteroscopy with endometrial injury and hysteroscopy alone. Evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy with hysteroscopy alone is 10%, then the chance with hysteroscopy with endometrial injury would be 7% to 24%. This study did not report the primary outcomes of live birth and pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Role of Regulatory T Cells in Regulating Fetal-Maternal Immune Tolerance in Healthy Pregnancies and Reproductive Diseases

Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are a specialized subset of T lymphocytes that function as suppressive immune cells and inhibit various elements of immune response in vitro and in vivo. While there are constraints on the number or function of Tregs which can be exploited to evoke an effective anti-tumor response, sufficient expansion of Tregs is essential for successful organ transplantation and for promoting tolerance of self and foreign antigens. The immune-suppressive property of Tregs equips this T lymphocyte subpopulation with a pivotal role in the establishment and maintenance of maternal tolerance to fetal alloantigens, which is necessary for successful pregnancy. Elevation in the level of pregnancy-related hormones including estrogen, progesterone and human chorionic gonadotropin promotes the recruitment and expansion of Tregs, directly implicating these cells in the regulation of fetal-maternal immune tolerance. Current studies have provided evidence that a defect in the number or function of Tregs contributes to the etiology of several reproductive diseases, such as recurrent spontaneous abortion, endometriosis, and pre-eclampsia. In this review, we provide insight into the underlying mechanism through which Tregs contribute to pregnancy-related immune tolerance and demonstrate the association between deficiencies in Tregs and the development of reproductive diseases.

The impact of intentional endometrial injury on reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endometrial injury is an intentional damage made to the endometrium, usually produced by a Pipelle catheter. Over the last two decades, endometrial injury has been studied to improve implantation rates and decrease the incidence of implantation failure in invitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Recently, additional studies of endometrial injury, performed not only in patients with implantation failure but also in intrauterine insemination cycles, have been conducted, and the endometrial injury made by hysteroscopy has been researched. The evidence describing the impact of endometrial injury is controversial; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the issue.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

Our objective is to review the research that has been done until now and perform a meta-analysis regarding endometrial injury and its influence on implantation success and pregnancy rates in patients with at least one failed IVF cycle. In particular, we aim to study the efficacy of the procedure and look for confounding factors, such as maternal age, in assessing the efficacy of endometrial injury.

SEARCH METHODS

The systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Study protocol can be assessed at PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42018092773). Searches were conducted by an experienced research librarian in the following databases: MEDLINE(R) using the OvidSP interface and PUBMED, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. This review considered for inclusion randomized-controlled trials examining the success of performing local endometrial injury on IVF outcomes in women with previous failed IVF cycles.

OUTCOMES

Ten studies, comprising a total of 1260 patients, were selected. Overall, when studying the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy rates (CPRs) and live birth rates (LBRs), higher rates were shown in the endometrial injury group. However, endometrial injury did not significantly improve CPRs and LBRs, when considering sub-group analyses of studies including patients with two or more failed IVF cycles, studies examining older patients or studies which did not include hysteroscopy. There was no significant difference found regarding multiple pregnancy rates, while a handful of studies showed an improvement in miscarriage rates.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Endometrial injury should be used restrictively and not routinely in clinics. Maternal age and number of previous failed treatment cycles may be contributing factors which can influence the results when studying the effect of endometrial local injury. It is possible that the relative contribution of endometrial receptivity to the chances of implantation decreases with any additional failed cycle. The optimal study to prove the efficacy of local endometrial injury on implantation and pregnancy rates, should be a random-controlled trial studying the effect of local endometrial injury in oocyte donation cycles, in recipients with repeated implantation failure. This kind of study will conclude whether local endometrial injury is an efficient procedure with minimum confounding factors, and may assist in defining the population, even outside of donation cycles, that will benefit from the procedure.

Application of ultrasound multimodal score in the assessment of endometrial receptivity in patients with artificial abortion

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the value and feasibility of ultrasound multimodal score in the evaluation of endometrial receptivity in patients with artificial abortion (AA).

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients with AA (AA group) and 70 women of the childbearing age without any history of abortion (control group) were recruited between January 2018 and December 2018. All subjects received the examination of endometrium in the middle luteum phase (7-9 days after ovulation) with two-dimensional gray-scale ultrasound, two-dimensional color Doppler ultrasound, and three-dimensional ultrasound, and the quantitative scores were obtained and compared between two groups.

RESULTS

The quantitative score of endometrial receptivity was 10.46 ± 2.99 in the AA group and 13.49 ± 2.21 in the control group showing significant difference (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Ultrasound multimodal quantitative scores can be used to evaluate the endometrial receptivity of patients with AA.

Randomised controlled trials evaluating endometrial scratching: assessment of methodological issues

STUDY QUESTION

Do randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial scratching suffer from methodological issues including insufficient trial registration, statistical errors or irreproducibility, randomisation errors or miscellaneous issues?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The majority of RCTs investigating endometrial scratching have methodological issues.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A large number of small RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI)/intercourse have reported favourable findings. Subsequently, systematic reviews incorporating these RCTs yielded meta-analyses in favour of endometrial scratching. Endometrial scratching has been widely adopted by infertility specialists around the world. Recently, an international RCT including 1364 women reported no benefit from endometrial scratching before IVF.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We evaluated several methodological issues of RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to IVF and IUI/intercourse. We identified 25 RCTs for IVF and 12 RCTs for IUI/intercourse with full-text publication.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We assessed the RCTs on the following criteria: adequacy of trial registration, statistical issues (description of statistical methods and reproducibility of univariable statistical analysis), excessive similarity or difference in baseline characteristics that is not compatible with chance (Monte Carlo simulations and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and miscellaneous methodological issues.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of 25 RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching prior to IVF, only eight (32%) had adequate trial registration. In total, 10 (40%) RCTs had issues regarding statistical methods. Nine (69%, 13 applicable) RCTs had at least one inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable statistical analysis for categorical baseline/intermediate characteristics. Statistical results of at least one outcome were not reproducible in 14 (74%, 19 applicable) RCTs. Only two (8%) RCTs had none of the above issues. Suggested by the simulations, these RCTs did not significantly violate the null hypothesis that the baseline characteristics were the results of a properly conducted randomisation process (P = 0.4395).

Of 12 IUI/intercourse RCTs, only 2 (17%) had adequate trial registration. In total, five (42%) studies had issues of statistical methods. Inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable analysis for baseline/intermediate categorical variable(s) was found in four (57%, 7 applicable) RCTs. Statistical analysis was not reproducible for at least one outcome in eight (80%, 10 applicable) studies. All RCTs had at least one of the above issues. These RCTs were inconsistent with the null hypothesis that their baseline characteristics were the results of proper randomised allocation (P = 1.659*10−7).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We were unable to assess RCTs which were not published as full-text papers. We could not analyse individual participant data to investigate possible reasons for statistical inconsistencies. The method to infer the likelihood of proper random sampling rests on assumptions including independent baseline characteristics, simple randomisation and no publication bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The methodological issues common to RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching may have biased the results of the trials. Further development and validation of these novel methods may be helpful for the critical appraisal of RCTs.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was sought to support this work. B.W.M. is supported by a National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. D.W. is supported by a grant from the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Austria (PMU Research Fund—PMU FFF Number: L-18/02/006-WET) and by Drs Haackert Foundation, Germany. S.L. is an author of a trial included in this study, an author of an included systematic review and a Cochrane editor. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A

A Randomized Trial of Endometrial Scratching before In Vitro Fertilization

BACKGROUND

Endometrial scratching (with the use of a pipelle biopsy) is a technique proposed to facilitate embryo implantation and increase the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible women were undergoing IVF (fresh-embryo or frozen-embryo transfer), with no recent exposure to disruptive intrauterine instrumentation (e.g., hysteroscopy). Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either endometrial scratching (by pipelle biopsy between day 3 of the cycle preceding the embryo-transfer cycle and day 3 of the embryo-transfer cycle) or no intervention. The primary outcome was live birth.

RESULTS

A total of 1364 women underwent randomization. The frequency of live birth was 180 of 690 women (26.1%) in the endometrial-scratch group and 176 of 674 women (26.1%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.27). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage. The median score for pain from endometrial scratching (on a scale of 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating worse pain) was 3.5 (interquartile range, 1.9 to 6.0).

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial scratching did not result in a higher rate of live birth than no intervention among women undergoing IVF. (Funded by the University of Auckland and others; PIP Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614000626662 .).

Therapeutic Efficacy of Endometrial Scratching in Repeated Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) Failure Cycles

Objective:

The objective of the study was (1) “to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of endometrial scratching in repeated controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) failure cycles.” And (2) “to compare differences in pregnancy outcome by endometrial scratching in early (D2–D4) and late follicular phases (D7–D9) of the same stimulation cycle.”

Materials and Methods:

Women attending infertility clinic in a tertiary care center and who have two or more repeated COS failure cycles and planned for COS with intrauterine insemination (IUI) were included in the study which is a prospective parallel, interventional, single-blinded, randomized control study, in 1:1 allocation ratio. A total of 165 patients were recruited and randomly allocated into three groups: Group A (n = 55) underwent endometrial scratching on D2–D4 of the same COS cycle, Group B (n = 55) on D7–D9, and Group C (n = 55) no intervention done. All the patients underwent COS according to standard protocol followed by IUI.

Results:

Clinical pregnancy rate was 12.73% (odds ratio [OR] =0.87 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.288–2.55, P = 1), 16.36% (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 0.40–3.23, P = 1), and 14.54%, respectively, in Group A, B, and C, respectively (P = 0.86), as per intention to treat analysis. Using Chi-square test, P value between Group A and B was 0.787, between Group A and C was 1.000, and between Group B and C was 1.000. As per protocol analysis, clinical pregnancy rate was 13.46% (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.27–2.5, P = 0.74), 19.57% (OR = 1.3 95%; CI = 0.45–3.73, P = 0.41), and 15.69%. Using Chi-square test, Pvalue between Group A and B was 0.588, between Group A and C was 0.967, and between Group B and C was 0.815. No abortions and multiple pregnancies occurred in either of the groups.

Conclusion:

The effect found was of good quantum in Group B as per protocol analysis which could be of clinical relevance if larger sample size would have been taken. Endometrial scratching is a cost-effective and easy technique which may improve clinical pregnancy rates in previous COS failure cycles, but more trials are needed to be conducted using larger sample size to achieve the improved and significant outcome.

Comparison of pregnancy rates between patients with and without local endometrial scratching before intrauterine insemination

OBJECTIVES

To determine the implantation success of local endometrial injury in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination following ovulation induction with gonadotropins as an infertility treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, ovulation induction was performed with gonadotropins in 80 patients following intrauterine insemination. In 40 patients, local endometrial injury (scratch) was performed in the midluteal phase of the cycle preceding ovarian stimulation with a Novak curette to the posterior side of the endometrial cavity.

RESULTS

Fifteen pregnancies (37.5%) and 11 clinical pregnancies (27.5%) occurred in the intervention group, whereas eight pregnancies (20%) and five clinical pregnancies (12.5%) occurred in the control group. Although the pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates were increased in the intervention group, no statistically significant difference was found between the intervention and control groups (pregnancy rates: P=0.084; clinical pregnancy rates: P=0.094).

CONCLUSION

Performing local endometrial injury (scratch) in the cycle preceding ovulation induction in patients with a diagnosis of infertility and indication for intrauterine insemination increased the pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates. This increase was not, however, statistically significant. More randomized, controlled, prospective studies with larger patient numbers are required before the use of iatrogenic induction of local endometrial injury can be recommended in routine clinical practice.

The effect of endometrial scratch injury on pregnancy outcome in women with previous intrauterine insemination failure: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

Endometrial scratch injury (ESI) has been recently proposed to enhance the implantation rate in assisted reproductive technology cycles. The present study was conducted to determine the effect of ESI on pregnancy rate in women with intrauterine insemination (IUI) failure.

METHODS

This prospective randomized controlled study was carried out in Imam-Khomeini Hospital and Royan Institute, Tehran, during a 12-month period from January 2013 to January 2014. After assessment, 169 patients who had IUI failure twice or more (no chemical or clinical pregnancy) with normal uterine anatomy and hysterosalpingography, were enrolled. They were randomly assigned into two groups. In the experimental group, all patients underwent ESI at day 8 or 9 of stimulation phase in the present IUI cycle, whereas no intervention was performed on the control group. IUI outcome was then compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 150 patients completed the IUI cycle during the study. The chemical pregnancy rate was 10.7% and 2.7% in the experimental and control groups, respectively, without significant difference (P = 0.09). Also no significant differences were detected in terms of clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant beneficial effect of ESI on fertility outcome in patients with repeated IUI failure was detected when it was carried out on day 8 or 9 of the same IUI stimulation cycle. Also, however, no negative impact secondary to ESI was observed. Therefore, confirmation or refutation of this hypothesis requires further studies with a larger sample size. IRCT201507271141N19.

Pregnancy after endometrial scratching in infertile couples undergoing ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination cycles-a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To study the effect of endometrial scratching in infertile couples undergoing ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AIIMS, New Delhi, India. One hundred forty-four women with primary/secondary infertility were recruited. Couples were either unexplained or male factor infertility. Subjects were randomized into intervention (scratching) and control group. All patients received ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate (day 2-6) 50 mg/day +75 IU HMG on days 6 and 7. In addition, endometrial scratching was done on day 8 of ovulation induction cycle in intervention group. All couples were planned for three cycles of ovulation induction and IUI over 6 months. After each failed cycle, couple was advised to try for natural conception for one cycle. Those who conceived were excluded from further analysis. Primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcome measures included conception rate, ongoing pregnancy, abortion and ectopic rate.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in intervention group (31.9%; 23/72) as compared to control group (16.7%; 12/72) (p value 0.030). On per cycle analysis, first IUI cycle had significantly high pregnancy rate (18.1%; 13/72) as compared to control group (5.6%; 4/72). Three patients in intervention group and one in control group conceived in wash out cycle. Ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly higher in scratching group (30.0%; 21/70) as compared to control group (15.7%; 11/70) (p value0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial scratching can be used as a low cost-effective tool to improve clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rate in IUI cycles. Further large number studies are required to document its role in improving live birth rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2015/12/006419.

Hysteroscopic-guided local endometrial injury does not improve natural cycle pregnancy rate in women with unexplained infertility: Randomized controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of a hysteroscopic site-specific local endometrial injury (LEI) in a group of women with unexplained infertility (UI) undergoing expectant management with no fertility treatment versus no intervention.

METHODS

This open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted between June 2013 and July 2015. Hysteroscopic site-specific LEI was determined by patient identification number, and 120 women were included. Eligible participants were randomly assigned to receive either a single, site-specific LEI guided by hysteroscopy (study group, n = 60) or no intervention (control group, n = 60). Natural cycle folliculometry and timed intercourse were carried out for all participants for 3 months. Successful clinical pregnancy confirmed on ultrasound was the primary outcome measure, and first trimester miscarriage rate was the secondary outcome.

RESULTS

After identification, baseline clinical demographics were similar in the two groups. No statistically significant differences were noted in cumulative pregnancy rates in women with LEI compared with those without (16.7% and 11.7 %, respectively; OR, 2.83; 95%CI: 1.07-7.48; P = 0.4). One first trimester miscarriage was reported in the control group (14.3%).

CONCLUSION

Local endometrial injury for natural cycle conception in women with UI is not justified. Further RCT are warranted to prove or disprove this.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intentional endometrial injury is currently being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy or a similar technique, and is a common, simple, gynaecological procedure that has an established safety profile. However, it is also known to be associated with a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with low complexity fertility treatments such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and ovulation induction (OI), remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury in subfertile women and couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gyanecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, ISI Web of Knowledge and ClinicalTrials.gov; as well as reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. We performed the searches from inception to 31 October 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without OI) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality using GRADE methodology. The primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and bleeding secondary to the procedure. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials, which included a total of 1512 women, met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review. Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. In seven studies the women were undergoing IUI and in two studies the women were trying to conceive from sexual intercourse. Eight trials compared intentional endometrial injury with no injury/placebo procedure; of these two trials also compared intentional endometrial injury in the cycle prior to IUI with intentional endometrial injury in the IUI cycle. One trial compared higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injury. Intentional endometrial injury vs. either no intervention or a sham procedureWe are uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low (risk ratio (RR) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 3.15; six RCTs, 950 participants; I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). When we restricted the analysis to only studies at low risk of bias the effect was imprecise and the evidence remained of very low quality (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.82; one RCT, 105 participants; very low quality evidence). Endometrial injury may improve clinical pregnancy rates however the evidence is of low quality (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.58; eight RCTs, 1180 participants; I² statistic = 0%, low quality evidence).The average pain experienced by participants undergoing endometrial injury was 6/10 on a zero-10 visual analogue scale (VAS)(standard deviation = 1.5). However, only one study reported this outcome. Higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injuryWhen we compared hysteroscopy with endometrial injury to hysteroscopy alone, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; one RCT, 332 participants; low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.01; one RCT, 332 participants, low quality evidence). This study did not report the primary outcome of pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injuryWhen endometrial injury was performed in the cycle prior to IUI compared to the same cycle as the IUI, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.16, one RCT, 176 participants; very low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.36; two RCTs, 276 participants; very low quality evidence). Neither of these studies reported the primary outcome of pain during the procedure.In all three comparisons there was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. No studies reported bleeding secondary to the procedure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the probability of pregnancy and live birth/ongoing pregnancy in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution as we graded the quality of the evidence as either low or very low. The main reasons we downgraded the quality of the evidence were most included studies were at a high risk of bias and had an overall low level of precision. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise internal bias are required to confirm or refute these findings.