Tubal flushing for subfertility

Hystero-Salphingography in current clinical practice-old flames, die hard!

Hysterosalpingography (HSG) remains a valuable diagnostic tool in current clinical practice, offering crucial insights into endometrial cavity, fallopian tubes and the adjoining part of the pelvic peritoneal cavity. Despite the emergence of alternative imaging and non-imaging options, HSG continues to be widely utilized due to its diagnostic accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and easy accessibility. Due attention to the correct technique and optimal image interpretation will further enhance its diagnostic accuracy and precision in the work-up of patients with fertility problems.

Enhancing Fertility in the Same Cycle: A Case Report on Effects of Hysterosalpingo-Foam Sonography (HyFoSy) for a Couple With Mild Infertility

Fertility issues are becoming increasingly prevalent, leading many couples to seek fertility treatment at specialized centers. Infertility is a diverse clinical condition, with multiple potential etiologic factors and variable severity in its manifestation. Regardless of the underlying factors and severity, routine fertility assessment rarely differs between cases, with an essential step being fallopian tube patency assessment. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is the latest available diagnostic technique to assess this parameter, offering robust results, with reduced intra-procedural pain and equipment requirements, in the convenience of the office setting. However, apart from its diagnostic value, HyFoSy has also demonstrated a therapeutic tubal flushing effect, that may be the decisive factor for couples with mild infertility to spontaneously conceive. In this report, we present the case of a couple with mild infertility, who managed to spontaneously conceive after a HyFoSy examination, and in fact within the same cycle.

The effectiveness of immediate versus delayed tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility (H2Oil-timing study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography leads to significantly more live births as compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography. However, it is unknown whether incorporating tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in the initial fertility work-up results to a reduced time to conception leading to live birth when compared to delayed tubal flushing that is performed six months after the initial fertility work-up. We also aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography versus no tubal flushing in the first six months of the study.

METHODS

This study will be an investigator-initiated, open-label, international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a planned economic analysis alongside the study. Infertile women between 18 and 39 years of age, who have an ovulatory cycle, who are at low risk for tubal pathology and have been advised expectant management for at least six months (based on the Hunault prediction score) will be included in this study. Eligible women will be randomly allocated (1:1) to immediate tubal flushing (intervention) versus delayed tubal flushing (control group) by using web-based block randomization stratified per study center. The primary outcome is time to conception leading to live birth with conception within twelve months after randomization. We assess the cumulative conception rate at six and twelve months as two co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, number of complications, procedural pain score and cost-effectiveness. To demonstrate or refute a shorter time to pregnancy of three months with a power of 90%, a sample size of 554 women is calculated.

DISCUSSION

The H2Oil-timing study will provide insight into whether tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography should be incorporated in the initial fertility work-up in women with unexplained infertility as a therapeutic procedure. If this multicenter RCT shows that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast incorporated in the initial fertility work-up reduces time to conception and is a cost-effective strategy, the results may lead to adjustments of (inter)national guidelines and change clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was retrospectively registered in International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Main ID: EUCTR2018-004153-24-NL).

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.

Live birth after additional tubal flushing with oil-based contrast versus no additional flushing: a randomised, multicentre, parallel-group pragmatic trial in infertile women with at least one patent tube at hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HYFOIL study)

INTRODUCTION

Tubal patency testing is an essential part in the fertility workup of many subfertile women. Hysterosalpingography (HSG) has long been the test of choice in many clinics. There is evidence from a large randomised multicentre trial and from a recent meta-analysis that women who had HSG using oil soluble contrast medium (OSCM) had higher rates of ongoing pregnancy compared with women who underwent this procedure using water contrast. However, the field is moving away from HSG and nowadays hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (Hyfosy) using ultrasound guidance is considered as the first line office tubal patency test. Therefore, a large multicentre randomised clinical trial (RCT) will be initiated to evaluate if flushing the fallopian tubes with OSCM after a normal Hyfosy showing at least one patent fallopian tube will increase the live birth rate as compared with no flushing.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We plan a multicentre two arm, 1:1 randomised, open-label pragmatic comparative trial in 12 Belgian centres. After informed consent, we will randomise infertile women between 18 and 40 years of age, undergoing Hyfosy as part of the fertility workup to Hyfosy with additional tubal flushing with OSCM versus Hyfosy without additional flushing. Infertility is defined as lack of conception despite 12 months of unprotected intercourse, or three cycles of donor insemination without pregnancy or three ovulatory ovulation induction cycles without pregnancy, all three in combination with at least one patent tube on Hyfosy. Primary endpoint will be live birth with conception within 6 months after randomisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approval on 11 May 2021 by the Ethics Committee from ZNA Hospital Antwerp who was the central Ethics Committee for the Clinical Trial Regulation Pilot (Pilot 412) in the 12 centres. The findings from this RCT will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and presentations at scientific international meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EudraCT number: 2020-002135-30 and NCT04379973.

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.

TGF-β1 Neutralization Improves Pregnancy Outcomes by Restoring Endometrial Receptivity in Mice with Adenomyosis

The objective of this research is to study the effects of TGF-β1 inhibition on endometrial receptivity and pregnancy outcomes in mice with adenomyosis. Experiments were done using a mouse model of adenomyosis which took place in a hospital-affiliated laboratory. The mouse model used for this research is ICR mouse. Adenomyosis was induced by oral gavage of tamoxifen (TAM) from postnatal days (PNDs) 1 to 4 in ICR mice. Bilateral intrauterine injection of anti-TGF-β1-neutralizing antibody or isotype IgG or PBS was performed at PND42. The mice were then either sacrificed or mated at PND64 followed by sacrificing at gestational day (GD) 4 or proceeding to delivery. Implantation numbers, rate of dams with live birth, live birth numbers, survival at 1 week old, and pup mortality rate after weaning were recorded. Collagen was demonstrated by Masson's trichrome and Van Gieson's stains. Uterine expression of a receptivity marker, leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF), was examined by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR), Western blot, and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Anti-TGF-β1 treatment increased the mean implantation numbers, fecundity rate, the rate of dams with live birth, pup survival rate at 1 week old, and pup mortality rate after weaning. Collagen expression in uteri with adenomyosis was attenuated by anti-TGF-β1 treatment. Increased LIF expression by anti-TGF-β1 treatment was detected by qRT-PCR, Western blot, and IHC. The results suggest that inhibition of TGF-β1 improves pregnancy outcomes by restoring endometrial receptivity in mice with adenomyosis.

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

Establishing the subgroup analysis of the fallopian tubes (tubes) is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and visualising patency on radiographs, ultrasonography or laparoscopy. Many women were noted to conceive in the first three to six months after tubal flushing, raising the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates. An important adverse event during tubal flushing is intravasation (backflow of contrast medium into the blood or lymphatic vessels),which could lead to embolism although it is asymptomatic in most cases.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) and water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) on subsequent fertility outcomes in women with subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, reference lists of identified articles and trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with OSCM, WSCM with each other or with no treatment, in women with subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials involving 3864 women were included in this systematic review. Overall, the quality of evidence varied from very low to moderate: the main limitations were risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision. OSCM versus no treatment Four studies (506 women) were included in this comparison. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 6.85, 3 RCTs, 204 women, I² = 0, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 11%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 16% and 46%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase in the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.08 to 6.02, 4 RCTs, 506 women, I² = 18%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 17% and 37%. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. WSCM versus no treatment Only one study (334 women) was included in this comparison. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increase live birth compared to no treatment (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 21%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 15% and 33%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increases clinical pregnancy compared to no treatment (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 27%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 29% and 40%. One case with pelvic infection was reported in the WSCM group and no case with infection in the no treatment group in a one study (334 women). Meta-analysis was not performed due to the rare events. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. OSCM versus WSCM Six studies (2598 women) were included in this comparison. Three studies reported live birth, including two with higher live birth in the OSCM group (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.11, 1119 women; OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.03, 398 women); and one with insufficient evidence of a difference between groups (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40, 533 women). Given the substantial heterogeneity observed (I² = 86%), meta-analysis was not performed. Tubal flushing with OSCM probably increased in the odds of intravasation (asymptomatic) compared to tubal flushing with WSCM (OR 5.00, 95% CI 2.25 to 11.12, 4 RCTs, 1912 women, I² = 0, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of intravasation following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 1%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 2% and 9%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.85, 6 RCTs, 2598 women, I² = 41%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 26%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 28% and 39%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with OSCM decreases the odds of infection (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.22, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I² = 0, very low-quality evidence) or haemorrhage (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.06, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I² = 0, very low-quality evidence). Three neonates with congenital abnormalities were reported in the OSCM group while no congenital abnormality was reported in the WSCM group in one study (1119 women). No meta-analysis was performed due to the rare events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that compared to no treatment, tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the chance of live birth and clinical pregnancy, while it is uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM improves those outcomes. Compared to tubal flushing with WSCM, OSCM may improve clinical pregnancy while meta-analysis was impossible for live birth due to heterogeneity. Evidence also suggests that OSCM is associated with an increased risk of asymptomatic intravasation. Overall, adverse events, especially long-term adverse events, are poorly reported across studies.

The long-term costs and effects of tubal flushing with oil-based versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography

RESEARCH QUESTION

What are the long-term costs and effects of oil- versus water-based contrast in infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG)?

DESIGN

This economic evaluation of a long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial involved 1119 infertile women randomized to HSG with oil- (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562) in the Netherlands.

RESULTS

In the oil-based contrast group, 39.8% of women needed no other treatment, 34.6% underwent intrauterine insemination (IUI) and 25.6% had IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in the 5 years following HSG. In the water-based contrast group, 35.0% of women had no other treatment, 34.2% had IUI and 30.8% had IVF/ICSI in the 5 years following HSG (P = 0.113). After 5 years of follow-up, HSG using oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€144; 95% confidence interval [CI] -€579 to +€290; P = 0.515) for a 5% increase in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate compared with HSG using water-based contrast (80% compared with 75%, Relative Risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.14). Similarly, HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€50; 95% CI -€576 to +€475; P = 0.850) for a 7.5% increase in the cumulative live birth rate compared with HSG with water-based contrast (74.8% compared with 67.3%, RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20), making it the dominant strategy. Scenario analyses suggest that the oil-based contrast medium is the dominant strategy up to a price difference of €300.

CONCLUSION

Over a 5-year follow-up, HSG with an oil-based contrast was associated with a 5% increase in ongoing pregnancy rate, a 7.5% increase in live birth rate and similar costs to HSG with water-based contrast.

Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study

STUDY QUESTION

Does pain or volume of used contrast medium impact the effectiveness of oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In women who report moderate to severe pain during HSG, the use of oil-based contrast resulted in more ongoing pregnancies compared to the use of water-based contrast, whereas in women who reported mild or no pain, no difference in ongoing pregnancies was found.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, the use of oil-based contrast results in more ongoing pregnancies within 6 months as compared to the use of water-based contrast. However, the underlying mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect remains unclear.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a post-hoc analysis of the H2Oil study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the therapeutic effect of oil- and water-based contrast at HSG. Here, we evaluated the impact of pain experienced at HSG and volume of used contrast media during HSG on ongoing pregnancy.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

In a subset of 400 participating women, pain during HSG by means of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range: 0.0–10.0 cm) was reported, while in 512 women, we registered the volume of used contrast (in millilitres). We used logistic regression analyses to assess whether pain and volume of used contrast media modified the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy rates. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In 400 women in whom pain scores were reported, the overall median pain score was 5.0 (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.0–6.8) (oil group (n = 199) 4.8 (IQR 3.0–6.4); water group (n = 201) 5.0 (IQR 3.0–6.7); P-value 0.28). There was a significant interaction between pain (VAS ≤5 versus VAS ≥6) and the primary outcome ongoing pregnancy (P-value 0.047). In women experiencing pain (VAS ≥6), HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in better 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates compared to HSG with water-based contrast (49.4% versus 29.6%; RR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1–2.5), while in women with a pain score ≤5, 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the use of oil- (28.8%) versus water-based contrast (29.2%) (RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66–1.5). In the 512 women in whom we recorded contrast, median volume was 9.0 ml (IQR 5.7–15.0) in the oil group versus 8.0 ml (IQR 5.9–13.0) in the water group, respectively (P-value 0.72). Volume of used contrast was not found to modify the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy (P-value for interaction 0.23).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This was a post-hoc analysis that should be considered as hypothesis generating. The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women, younger than 39 years of age and with a low risk for tubal pathology. Therefore, our results should not be generalised to infertile women who do not share these features.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The underlying mechanism of the fertility-enhancing effect induced by HSG with the use of oil-based contrast remains unclear. However, these findings suggest a possible mechanistic pathway, that is increasing intrauterine pressure occurring prior to dislodging pregnancy hindering debris or mucus plugs from the proximal part of otherwise normal fallopian tubes. This information might help in the search of the underlying fertility-enhancing mechanism found by using oil-based contrast during HSG.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet. H.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers’ fees from Ferring and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research grants from Merck KGaA and Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflict of interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The H2Oil study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR 3270).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

1 February 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

3 February 2012.

How long does the fertility-enhancing effect of hysterosalpingography with oil-based contrast last?

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does the fertility-enhancing effect of tubal flushing during hysterosalpingography (HSG) with oil-based contrast change over time?

DESIGN

This was a secondary analysis of the H2Oil (long-term follow-up) study, a multicentre randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of oil-based and water-based contrast during HSG. The main outcome was ongoing pregnancy. Cox proportional hazards models for time to ongoing pregnancy were fitted over 3 years of follow-up.

RESULTS

Data on 1107 couples were available; 550 couples had oil-based contrast and 557 water-based contrast at HSG. Ongoing pregnancy rates after 3 years were 77% and 71%, respectively. Median follow-up was 9-10 months (5th-95th percentile: <1 to 36). The hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy for oil versus water over 3 years of follow-up was 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.45). The scaled Schoenfeld residual plots showed a decrease in hazard ratio that was linear with log-transformed time. After including an interaction with log-transformed time, the hazard ratio immediately after HSG was 1.71 (95% CI 1.27-2.31) and reduced to no effect (hazard ratio of 1) at approximately 2 years. There was no evidence for a change in hazard ratio over time in a subgroup of women who experienced pain during HSG.

CONCLUSIONS

The hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy of oil-based versus water-based contrast was 1.71 immediately after HSG, gradually decreasing and plateauing towards a hazard ratio of 1 (indicating no effect) after approximately 2 years. This supports the hypothesis that oil-based contrast might dislodge debris or mucus plugs from the Fallopian tubes, but this has yet to be definitively proved.

Tubal flushing with oil-based or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility: long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of oil-based versus water-based contrast on pregnancy and live birth rates ≤5 years after hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women.

DESIGN

A 5-year follow-up study of a multicenter randomized trial.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PATIENT(S)

Infertile women with an ovulatory cycle, 18-39 years of age, and having a low risk of tubal pathology.

INTERVENTION(S)

Use of oil-based versus water-based contrast during HSG.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ongoing pregnancy, live births, time to ongoing pregnancy, second ongoing pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

A total of 1,119 women were randomly assigned to HSG with oil-based contrast (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562). After 5 years, 444 of 555 women in the oil group (80.0%) and 419 of 559 women in the water group (75.0%) had an ongoing pregnancy (relative risk [RR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.14), and 415 of 555 women in the oil group (74.8%) and 376 of 559 women in the water group (67.3%) had live births (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20). In the oil group, 228 pregnancies (41.1%) were conceived naturally versus 194 (34.7%) pregnancies in the water group (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.02-1.38). The time to ongoing pregnancy was significantly shorter in the oil group versus the water group (10.0 vs. 13.7 months; hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI 1.09-1.43). No difference was found in the occurrence of a second ongoing pregnancy.

CONCLUSION(S)

During a 5-year time frame, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates are higher after tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG compared with water-based contrast. More pregnancies are naturally conceived and time to ongoing pregnancy is shorter after HSG with oil-based contrast.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) 3270 and NTR6577(www.trialregister.nl).

Impact of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection on reproductive outcomes among infertile women undergoing tubal flushing: a retrospective cohort at a fertility centre in Uganda

BACKGROUND

The impact of current C. trachomatis on clinical pregnancy and live birth rates among women undergoing tubal flushing is largely unknown. This study aimed to investigate whether current female genital C. trachomatis infection affects the chance of achieving a clinical pregnancy and a live birth, among infertile women undergoing tubal flushing, at a fertility centre in Uganda.

METHODS

A retrospective Cohort study at a peri-urban fertility centre. A total of 253 eligible women with tubal factor infertility, who underwent tubal flushing, were enrolled and categorised according to their exposure to current genital C. trachomatis infection. These women were followed up for a period of 12 months, with the primary outcome measure being clinical pregnancy and live birth. Secondary outcome measures included pregnancy loss and procedural related adverse events.

RESULTS

Exposure to current genital C. trachomatis infection reduced chance of clinical pregnancy (adjusted relative risk 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.96) and a live birth (adjusted relative risk 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.95) after tubal flushing. Women with current C. trachomatis infection had an increased risk of adverse events (adjusted relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.34). However, current C. trachomatis infection did not affect the risk of spontaneous abortion and ectopic pregnancy.

CONCLUSION

Current genital C. trachomatis infection in women with tubal factor infertility, undergoing tubal flushing, lowers their chance of pregnancy and live birth.

Clinical Aspects of HyFoSy as Tubal Patency Test in Subfertility Workup

BACKGROUND

Tubal patency testing is an essential part of female subfertility evaluation. Traditionally, hysterosalpingography (HSG) was the first step to evaluate tubal patency. However, during the past decade Hysterosalpingo-Contrast Sonography (HyCoSy) was introduced in order to avoid radiation exposure and Hysterosalpingo-Foam Sonography (HyFoSy) has been developed as a safe and less painful alternative.

OBJECTIVES AND RATIONALE

The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the currently available HyFoSy literature and related clinical aspects.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed and Embase from the introduction of HyFoSy to March 2019. Unfortunately, a meta-analysis was not possible due to a too small number of studies, being mutually incomparable for the various subjects of clinical aspects, even for the reliability as a test for tubal patency.

OUTCOMES

Nine small studies concluded that the accuracy and effectiveness as a test for tubal patency of 2D- and 3D-HyFoSy are comparable or even better than HSG or HyCoSy. With or without using Doppler techniques, 3D-HyFoSy does not seem to offer benefits above real-time 2D-HyFoSy. Five studies reported on pain and discomfort during HyFoSy, concluding that HyFoSy is a well-tolerated, less painful procedure compared to HSG, without a need for the use of analgesics. There are suggestions about an increased pregnancy rate in the first three cycles after the procedure but in no studies pregnancy outcome after HyFoSy was compared with other or no intervention.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

HyFoSy is a promising and safe alternative for HSG with regard to accuracy and effectiveness. HyFoSy lacks radiation and iodine exposure and is a well-tolerated and less painful procedure than HSG, without the need for analgesics. However more research is needed to make clear statements regarding a therapeutic effect of HyFoSy.

Ethiodized poppyseed oil versus ioversol for image quality and adverse events in hysterosalpingography: a prospective cohort study

Background

This study aimed to investigate the image quality and adverse events (AEs) of ethiodized poppyseed oil (EPO) compared with ioversol as contrast agents in hysterosalpingography (HSG).

Methods

Two hundred twenty-eight patients underwent HSG were consecutively recruited in this prospective cohort study, and were accordingly divided into EPO group (N = 165) and ioversol group (N = 63). The quality of image was assessed according to the European Guidelines on quality criteria for diagnostic radiographic images. AEs during, within 2 h and at 1-month post-HSG were recorded.

Results

EPO displayed elevated image quality compared with ioversol including the total image quality score (P < 0.001), the cervical canal display score (P < 0.001), shape and outline of uterus score (P < 0.01), cervical mucosa or folds score (P < 0.001), oviduct isthmus score (P < 0.001), ampulla and fimbriae of oviduct score (P < 0.001) and celiac diffuse image score (P < 0.001). Multivariate linear regression displayed that EPO (P < 0.001) was an independent predictive factor for increased total image quality score. AEs were similar between EPO group and ioversol group during and within 2 h post-HSG (all P > 0.05). However, at 1-month post-HSG, the number of patients had unchanged and faded menstrual blood color decreased but the proportion of patients with deepened menstrual color increased in EPO group compared with ioversol group (P = 0.007). In addition, the number of patients had iodine residue in uterine cavity was elevated in EPO group compared with ioversol group (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

EPO is more efficient in image quality and equally tolerant compared to ioversol as contrast agents in HSG.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12880-019-0346-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Hysterosalpingogram findings among subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology

PURPOSE

The objectives of our study included comparing reproductive histories and causes of infertility between patients with and without a hysterosalpingogram (HSG) investigation, and summarizing the prevalence and extent of tubal abnormalities among patients who underwent HSG. Outcomes following assisted reproductive technology (ART) were compared between HSG and non-HSG groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted to review the medical records of 200 Saudi women with subfertility. In addition to information on HSG, patient data extracted included age, body mass index (BMI), infertility duration, miscarriage experience, parity, cause of infertility, and history of previous surgery, ectopic pregnancy, endometriosis, tubal surgery, pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), in vitro fertilization (IVF), intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), pregnancy, and live birth.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety six (98.0%) patients had either IVF (n=18; 9.0%) or ICSI (n=178; 89.0%) performed; ICSI was performed in 157 (90%) and 21 (81%) patients. Of the 12 women with tubal factor who did not undergo HSG, 3 (25.0%) became pregnant after ART, 8 (66.7%) did not, and the status of 1 (8.3%) is yet unknown.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study aimed to contribute to resolving the debate regarding the continuing role of HSG in an environment where ART has become established as a successful approach to treat infertility. Most of the HSGs were done as per the attending physician's discretion, and not according to any specific policy.

Impact of hysterosalpingography after operative treatment for ectopic pregnancy in Taiwan: A 16-year Nationwide Population-Based Analysis

By retrieving records from Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) system's database, the current study aimed to investigate the impacts of hysterosalpingography (HSG) to patients after ectopic pregnancy (EP) operations in Taiwan.In this retrospective cohort study, insurance claims data from 1997 to 2013, derived from a cohort of 1 million people randomly sampled to represent all NHI beneficiaries, were analyzed. Patients after ectopic pregnancy (EP) operations were identified via the inclusion of the corresponding NHI procedure codes. We further divided the patients into 2 groups by whether received subsequent HSG, EP-HSG, and EP-no-HSG. Patients with history of previous pregnancies (PP) and subsequent HSG were grouped as PP-HSG. We sought to evaluate the following pregnancies (FP) rate, interval to FP in EP-HSG compared with that in EP-no-HSG, and PP-HSG.EP-HSG had significantly higher FP rate odds ratio than EP-no-HSG (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.24-2.16, P < .001). EP-HSG had lower FP rate odds ratio than that in PP-HSG, but no significant difference (33.1% vs 34.6%, P  =  .654). The INTERVAL(HSG-FP) in EP-HSG was no significantly different from that in PP-HSG (843.34 ± 82 days vs 644.72 ± 24.30 days, P  =  .077). There was significant positive correlation between FP after EP and number of HSG (r  =  0.070, P < .001). There were significant negative correlation between FP and EP age (r  =  -0.270, P < .001), FP and INTERVAL(EP-HSG) (r  =  -0.212, P  =  .001). The multivariate analysis showed that INTERVAL(EP-HSG) less than 1 year is the predictor factor of INTERVAL(EP-FP) (hazard ratio: 1.422; 95% CI: 1.130-1.788; P = .003). It was evident that the longer the INTERVAL(EP-HSG), the lower the FP rate odds ratio; and the older the EP age, the lower the FP rate odds ratio. (OR, 95% CI; >1 year: 0.59, 0.41-0.86; >2 year: 0.42, 0.32-0.55; >25 years old: 0.47, 0.38-0.57; >30 years old: 0.29, 0.24-0.35; >35 years old: 0.12, 0.08-0.18, all P < .001).Receiving HSG after EP, short INTERVAL(EP-HSG), EP age less than 30 years old, had significant positive impacts on the FP. We encourage shortening the INTERVAL(EP-HSG), and the counseling of women on the most appropriate way to conceive thereafter.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography: patient selection and perspectives

We present an overview of the common types of tubal patency tests, with a focus on hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy). Current evidence suggests that HyFoSy is an accurate alternative to X-ray hysterosalpingography (HSG) for outpatient tubal evaluation in women who are at low risk for tubal disease. It may be superior to saline hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy) in excluding tubal occlusion. A hyperechogenic medium may enhance contrast visualization and enable clearer delineation of tubal anatomy. This may enhance confidence in the diagnosis of tubal patency, reduce false occlusion results, and improve the diagnostic yield of the test. It would be reasonable to deduce that HyFoSy would have similar performance characteristics as HyCoSy with other positive contrast agents. The available evidence supports the accuracy of HyFoSy compared to other forms of tubal investigation. We suggest a decision-making pathway based on the most current professional recommendations and available evidence. However, in this article, we do not provide a definitive exposition of the methods used for investigating tubal patency. Rather, we explore the contexts in which the various investigations are most and least suitable, and identify their strengths and limitations. Finally, we also discuss challenges encountered when performing tubal contrast sonography in clinical practice, including the problem of false occlusion results.

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.

Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid in The Selection of Human Spermatozoa with Intact DNA by The Swim-up Method

Objective

In 2014, enrolled 20 patients who applied to the Unit of Assisted Reproduction Techniques, Konya Necmettin Erbakan University. Based on the presence of hyaluronic acid (HA) in the oocyte-cumulus cell complex, sperm attached to HA in vivo were modeled in vitro. Available healthy sperm obtained in the swim-up procedure using HA were investigated.

Materials and Methods

This observational cohort study, a routine analysis was conducted on the ejaculation samples obtained from 20 patients. We divided each sample into two groups and the swim-up method was applied. Human serum albumin (HSA, 0.5%) was added to samples from the first group. HA (10%) was added to samples from the second group. We determined the floating linear and non-linear sperm concentrations of both groups annexin V was used to determine the rate of apoptosis of these sperm.

Results

Following swim-up, linear and non-linear sperm concentrations were higher in the group that contained HA compared to the group with HSA. However, there was a significantly higher apoptosis rate in the HSA group compared to the HA group.

Conclusion

The addition of HA to the medium in the swim-up procedure positively affected sperm parameters. Thus, healthier sperm cells were obtained without DNA damage and with high motility.

Preovulatory uterine flushing with saline as a treatment for unexplained infertility: a randomised controlled trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is the treatment of choice for unexplained infertility. Preovulatory uterine flushing could reduce intrauterine debris and inflammatory factors preventing pregnancy and constitute an alternative to IVF. Our objective is to assess the efficacy of preovulatory uterine flushing with physiological saline for the treatment of unexplained infertility.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a randomised controlled trial based on consecutive women aged between 18 and 37 years consulting for unexplained infertility for at least 1 year. On the day of their luteinising hormone surge, 192 participants will be randomised in two equal groups to either receive 20 mL of physiological saline by an intrauterine catheter or 10 mL of saline intravaginally. We will assess relative risk of live birth (primary outcome), as well as pregnancy (secondary outcome) over one cycle of treatment. We will report the side effects, complications and acceptability of the intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This project was approved by the Ethics committee of the Centre Hospitatlier Universitaire de Quebec (no 2015-1146). Uterine flushing is usually well tolerated by women and would constitute a simple, affordable and minimally invasive treatment for unexplained infertility. We plan to communicate the results of the review by presenting research abstracts at conferences and by publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02539290; Pre-results.