Catheter type does not affect the outcome of intrauterine insemination treatment: a prospective randomized study

Relationship between semen regurgitation and pregnancy rates with intrauterine insemination

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the relationship between semen regurgitation and intrauterine insemination (IUI) outcomes. We hypothesized that clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates would be reduced when regurgitation occurred.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A university-based reproductive endocrinology and infertility clinic.

PATIENT(S)

Retrospective review of 1,957 IUI cycles performed on 660 patients between July 2007 and May 2012.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes were positive serum pregnancy result and clinical pregnancy. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a cluster-weighted generalized estimating equations method to estimate modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to account for multiple IUI cycles in the same patient.

RESULT(S)

Live birth rates were similar in IUI cycles with and without regurgitation (6.3% vs. 6.8%, respectively, RR = 0.82, 95% CI [0.53-1.26]). Clinical pregnancy rates in the presence or absence of regurgitation were 10.5% vs. 10.0% (RR = 0.99, 95% CI [0.73-1.35]). Positive serum pregnancy tests after IUI did not differ by regurgitation status (15.0% vs. 15.4%, RR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.75-1.24]). Results were unchanged when adjusted for covariates (age, race and ethnicity, body mass index, duration of infertility, medication, infertility diagnosis, total motile count, and method of sperm preparation).

CONCLUSION(S)

The presence of regurgitation during the IUI procedure is not related to pregnancy outcome.

Influence of Catheter Type and Tenaculum Use on Intrauterine Insemination Outcome

Background

We investigated the impact of the choice of catheter type and tenaculum use on pregnancy related out- comes in intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatments.

Materials and Methods

A total of 338 consecutive IUI cycles were assessed in this retrospective study. Participants were divided according to the insemination technique - soft catheter (group 1; n=175), firm catheter (group 2; n=100), or tenaculum (group 3; n=63). Clinical, laboratory, semen parameters and pregnancy related outcomes were compared.

Results

Demographic characteristics and laboratory parameters were similar between the groups (P>0.05). The clini- cal pregnancy rate (CPR) was significantly higher in the firm catheter (19%, 19/100) and tenaculum (31.7%, 20/63) groups compared to the soft catheter group (5.1%, 9/175, P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in live birth and miscarriage rates per clinical pregnancy (P>0.05).

Conclusion

Our findings indicate that the use of a firm catheter or tenaculum for IUI might result in a higher CPR, but might not have a considerable effect on the live birth rate (LBR). Further prospective randomized studies are required to determine the long-term effects of the catheter type or tenaculum use on IUI success.

Ultrasound guidance versus the blind method for intrauterine catheter insemination: A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to compare clinical pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment cycles with transabdominal ultrasound guidance during intrauterine catheter insemination (US-IUI) versus the "blind method" IUI without ultrasound guidance (BM-IUI). The secondary objective was to compare whether US-IUI had better patient tolerability and whether US-IUI made the insemination procedure easier for the clinician to perform compared to BM-IUI.

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled trial done at the Reproductive Medicine Unit of General Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. We included women aged between 25 and 40 years who underwent an IUI treatment cycle with follicle-stimulating hormone injections for controlled ovarian stimulation.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients were recruited for our study. The US-IUI group had 70 patients and the BM-IUI group had 60 patients. The clinical pregnancy rate was 10% in both groups (p> 0.995) and there were no significant difference between the groups for patient tolerability assessed by scores on a pain visual analog scale (p= 0.175) or level of difficulty for the clinician (p> 0.995). The multivariate analysis further showed no significant increase in the clinical pregnancy rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.34; p= 0.558) in the US-IUI group compared to the BM-IUI group even after adjusting for potential covariates.

CONCLUSION

The conventional blind method for intrauterine catheter insemination is recommended for patients undergoing IUI treatment. The use of ultrasound during the insemination procedure increased the need for trained personnel to perform ultrasonography and increased the cost, but added no extra benefits for patients or clinicians.

Soft versus firm catheters for intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is a recommended treatment for unexplained subfertility. The treatment involves the direct delivery of spermatozoa into the uterus using a catheter. Many factors influence the success of IUI treatments including the type of catheter used.

OBJECTIVES

To compare pregnancy-related outcomes from women undergoing intrauterine insemination cycles performed with either soft or firm catheters in subfertile women.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the following databases (inception to July 2010) with no language restrictions: Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS and OpenSigle. We also searched the conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge and Google, and conference abstracts and citation lists of relevant publications, reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only truly randomised controlled studies of women who underwent IUI using either soft or firm catheter types and reporting data on rates of live birth, clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ease of introduction of the catheter, occurrence of trauma, or woman's discomfort.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the titles and abstracts of 78 potentially eligible studies and excluded 66 of these. We critically appraised the full texts of twelve studies and excluded three studies. Nine publications of six studies were remaining. We extracted data from the six remaining studies and there were no disagreements. We assessed risk of bias and pooled dichotomous data and presented the Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

There was no evidence of a significant effect difference regarding the choice of catheter type for any of the outcomes. Three studies reported live birth rates (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.35) with a translated OR percentages (1.3, 95% CI 0.56 to 3.1) while six studies reported clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.35 ). Two studies were pooled for the analysis of miscarriages (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.22). Results of other adverse outcomes were reported per cycle and were therefore not pooled.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the evidence available in this review, no specific conclusion can be made regarding the superiority of one catheter class over another. Further adequately powered studies reporting on clinical outcomes (e.g. live birth rate) are required. Additional outcomes such as miscarriage rates and measures of discomfort need to be reported.

Intra-uterine insemination versus fallopian tube sperm perfusion for non-tubal infertility

BACKGROUND

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) combined with intrauterine insemination (IUI) is commonly offered to couples with subfertility that does not involve the fallopian tubes. Another method is fallopian tube sperm perfusion (FSP). This technique ensures the presence of higher sperm densities in the fallopian tubes at the time of ovulation than does standard IUI. The aim of this review was to determine whether FSP and IUI differ in improving the probability of conception.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether pregnancy and live birth outcomes differ between fallopian tube sperm perfusion and intrauterine insemination in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (October 2008), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2008), and EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2008). Abstracts of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (1987 to 2008) and European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (1987 to 2008) meetings were searched using the same key or text words.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only truly randomised controlled studies comparing FSP with IUI were included in this review. Couples with non-tubal subfertility who have been trying to conceive for at least one year were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials for inclusion based on the quality of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies involving 595 couples were included in the meta-analysis. Only one study reported the live birth rate and there was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.5). There was no evidence of a difference between FSP and IUI for clinical pregnancy per couple (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.7). A subgroup analysis which included couples with unexplained subfertility only (n = 239) did not report any difference between FSP and IUI (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.8).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For non-tubal subfertility, the results indicate no clear benefit for FSP over IUI. Therefore the advice offered to subfertile couples regarding the comparative use of FSP versus IUI in the treatment of non-tubal subfertility should reflect this.

Intrauterine insemination catheters for assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the oldest and most practised form of assisted reproduction worldwide. We systematically reviewed the literature so that we could evaluate the use of soft versus firm catheters in subfertile women undergoing IUI.

METHODS

Extensive searches were conducted for full-text manuscripts, conference abstracts, ongoing and unpublished trials. Primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy (CPR) and ongoing pregnancy (OPR)/live birth rates (LBRs) per woman. Secondary outcomes were multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) per clinical pregnancy, difficulty cannulating the cervix, bleeding and patient discomfort. Meta-analysis was performed using the Peto-modified Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model.

RESULTS

Seven randomized trials were identified, and four were excluded. No significant differences were noted for CPR and LBR per woman [OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.70-1.32 and OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.43-1.58, respectively]. As for the secondary outcomes, MPRs per cycle were also not significantly different. More difficulty was noted with soft catheters and more patient discomfort with firm catheters. Bleeding following the procedure was similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Catheter choice during IUI does not seem to be a detrimental factor for success, as in other assisted reproduction techniques (ART). More studies are warranted to draw definitive conclusions and support the results of this systematic review.