In vitro fertilization–intracytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes in single- versus double-lumen oocyte retrieval needles in normally responding patients: a randomized trial

Follicular flushing increases the number of oocytes retrieved: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does follicular flushing increase the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) retrieved compared to single aspiration?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Follicular flushing significantly increases the number of COCs retrieved compared to single aspiration.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

On the basis of published meta-analyses, follicular flushing does not seem to increase the number of oocytes retrieved, the probability of clinical pregnancy, or that of live birth and has been associated with an increase in the duration of oocyte retrieval. It should be noted, however, that all the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in these meta-analyses have randomized patients into either single aspiration or follicular flushing. This study design might not allow the detection of the true effect of follicular flushing. Despite randomization, this might still be obscured, to an extent, by heterogeneity in patients, stimulation characteristics, and differences in the oocyte retrieval procedure.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A prospective, single centre, RCT, including 105 patients was performed between July and December 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Eligible patients were those undergoing oocyte retrieval for ICSI, aged <43 years, with BMI 18-35 kg/m2. Patients with all types of ovarian response (low-normal-high), as assessed on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation, were included. Random allocation of the ovaries of each patient to either single aspiration or follicular flushing was performed on the day of oocyte retrieval, using a computer-generated randomization list. Patients could enter the study only once. All follicles from ovaries allocated to either follicular flushing or single aspiration, were aspirated by the same 16G double lumen needle, with a constant aspiration pressure of 190 mmHg, resulting in flow rate of 0.42 ml/s. In the ovaries allocated to the follicular flushing group, if a COC was not recovered in the initial aspirate of each follicle, follicular flushing was performed until a COC was retrieved, up to a maximum of five times. The primary outcome measure was the number of COCs retrieved. Secondary outcomes were oocyte recovery rate, oocyte maturation rate, fertilization rate, and rate of good quality embryos on Day 2. Values are expressed as a median (inter-quartile range).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Significantly more COCs were retrieved in the follicular flushing as compared to the single aspiration group in all patients [5 (7) vs 2 (3), P < 0.001, respectively], as well as in patients with high [9 (3) vs 5 (4), P < 0.001, respectively], normal [5 (2) vs 2 (3), P < 0.001, respectively] and low [1 (1) vs 1 (1), P < 0.001, respectively] ovarian response. In patients with low ovarian response, no COCs were retrieved in 5.7% of the ovaries in the flushing group vs 42.8% of the ovaries in the single aspiration group (P < 0.001). The oocyte retrieval rate was significantly higher in the follicular flushing vs the single aspiration group, in all patients [88.9% (25.0) vs 45.5% (37.5), P < 0.001, respectively], as well as in patients with high [81.8% (15.9) vs 45.5% (22.2), P < 0.001, respectively], normal [85.7% (28.6) vs 40.0% (30.0), P < 0.001, respectively], and low [100% (0) vs 50.0% (100), P < 0.001, respectively] ovarian response. No significant difference was observed regarding maturation rate [85.2% (30.8) vs 100% (33.3), P = 0.78], fertilization rate [76.4% (50) vs 83.3% (50) P = 0.42], and the proportion of good quality embryos on Day 2 [83.3% (40) vs 100% (50), P = 0.62]. Similarly, no differences in the above variables were observed in patients with different types of ovarian response. Follicular flushing as compared to single aspiration was associated with a significant increase in the duration of oocyte retrieval in all patients [248 s (332) vs 135 s (164), respectively], as well as in patients with high [464 s (225) vs 237 s (89), P < 0.001, respectively], normal [248 s (108) vs 141 s (95), P < 0.001, respectively], and low [64 s (59) vs 48 s (10), P < 0.001, respectively] ovarian response.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Although the current study design allows for a more accurate evaluation of the true effect of follicular flushing on the number of COCs retrieved, it does not permit the evaluation of its role on the probability of pregnancy.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the first RCT to suggest that follicular flushing increases the number of COCs retrieved compared to single aspiration, independently of ovarian response. This implies that follicular flushing plays an important role in the optimization of oocyte retrieval. These results, however, need to be confirmed in future studies, in which an equal flow rate should be used during oocyte retrieval.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was obtained for this study. There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05473455.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

15 July 2022.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

27 July 2022.

A Monocentric Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial to Compare Single- and Double-Lumen Needles in Oocyte Retrieval Procedure in Assisted Reproductive Technologies

The purpose was to determine any difference in outcomes, primarily in terms of number of retrieved oocytes per procedure, between two different needles used for oocytes retrieval procedure in Assisted Reproductive Technologies: the single-lumen needle (SLN) versus the double-lumen needle (DLN) with follicle flushing after aspiration. This randomized controlled trial included oocyte retrieval (OR) cycles for IVF and ICSI performed in 18 to 42-year-old women between March 2019 and January 2021 at a tertiary-care Fertility Center. A total of 200 ORs were randomized, 100 in each group. The mean number of retrieved oocytes was not different between groups (10.2 ± 6.5 for DLNs vs. 10.7 ± 7.0 for SLNs, p = 0.810). No significant differences were observed also in terms of number of retrieved oocytes/punctured follicles (83.0% ± 27.0% vs. 81.0% ± 22.0%, p = 0.916), number of retrieved oocytes/follicles at trigger (78.0% ± 29.0% vs. 78.0% ± 27.0%, p = 0.881), number of mature oocytes (7.6 ± 5.3 vs. 8.0 ± 5.1, p = 0.519), and pregnancy rate (27% vs. 23%, p = 0.514). However, the time required to retrieve each oocyte was longer using the DLN (1.5 ± 1.3 vs. 1.1 ± 0.9 minutes, p = 0.002). The present study confirmed the new perspectives on the sole use of SLNs in terms of saving time, without affecting the number of retrieved oocytes. Trial registration number and date of registration NCT03611907; July 26, 2018.

The importance of follicular flushing in optimizing oocyte retrieval

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To critically evaluate the use of follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval.

RECENT FINDINGS

The latest meta-analysis evaluating follicular flushing does not favour its use over single aspiration. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included, however, are characterized by significant heterogeneity regarding the population analysed, the needle type and lumen used, the aspiration pressure applied and the number of flushing attempts performed. More importantly, information regarding the flow rate used for aspiration is scarce. The only RCT employing a constant flow rate between single aspiration and follicular flushing in women with monofollicular development, suggests that a higher number of oocytes is retrieved after follicular flushing.

SUMMARY

In order to eliminate clinical heterogeneity that might obscure the detection of the true effect of follicular flushing, randomization to single aspiration and follicular flushing should occur within the same patient. This can be achieved by randomly allocating each patient's ovary to either single aspiration or follicular flushing, maintaining similar flow rates between the groups compared.Given the importance of maximizing the number of oocytes retrieved from a given number of follicles developed, the conduction of properly designed RCTs evaluating follicular flushing is certainly required.

Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

Follicular aspiration under transvaginal ultrasound guidance is routinely performed as part of assisted reproductive technology (ART) to retrieve oocytes for in vitro fertilisation (IVF). The process involves aspiration of the follicular fluid followed by the introduction of flush, typically culture media, back into the follicle followed by re-aspiration. However, there is a degree of controversy as to whether this intervention yields a larger number of oocytes and is hence associated with greater potential for pregnancy than aspiration only.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of follicular flushing as compared with aspiration only performed in women undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 13 July 2021: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL (containing output from two trial registries and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. We also searched LILACS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field to identify further relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared follicular aspiration and flushing with aspiration alone in women undergoing ART using their own gametes. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and miscarriage rate per woman randomised.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by search against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third review author was consulted if required. We contacted study authors as needed. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a fixed-effect model, and we analysed continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) between groups presented with 95% CIs. We examined the heterogeneity of studies via the I2 statistic. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 studies with a total of 1643 women. Fourteen studies reported outcomes per woman randomised, and one study reported outcomes per ovary. No studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; the main limitation was lack of blinding. The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, and was downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. We are uncertain of the effect of follicular flushing on live birth rate compared to aspiration alone (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.46; 4 RCTs; n = 467; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that with a live birth rate of approximately 30% with aspiration alone, the equivalent live birth rate with follicular flushing lies between 20% and 39%.  We are uncertain of the effect of follicular flushing on miscarriage rate compared to aspiration alone (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.22; 1 RCT; n = 164; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that with a miscarriage rate of approximately 1% with aspiration alone, the equivalent miscarriage rate with follicular flushing lies between 0% and 22%. We are uncertain of the effect of follicular flushing on oocyte yield (MD -0.47 oocytes, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.22; 9 RCTs; n = 1239; I2 = 61%; very low-certainty evidence); total number of embryos (MD -0.10 embryos, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.15; 2 RCTs; n = 160; I2 = 58%; low-certainty evidence); and clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.51; 7 RCTs; n = 939; I2 = 46%; low-certainty evidence). The duration of the retrieval process may be longer with flushing (MD 175.44 seconds, 95% CI 152.57 to 198.30; 7 RCTs; n = 785; I2 = 87%; low-certainty evidence). It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for adverse events, although individual studies reported on outcomes ranging from depression and anxiety to pain and pelvic organ injury.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effect of follicular flushing on both live birth and miscarriage rates compared with aspiration alone is uncertain. Although the evidence does not permit any firm conclusions on the impact of follicular flushing on oocyte yield, total number of embryos, number of cryopreserved embryos, or clinical pregnancy rate, it may be that the procedure itself takes longer than aspiration alone. The evidence was insufficient to permit any firm conclusions with respect to adverse events or safety.

Evaluation of follicular flushing with double lumen needle in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology treatments

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the possible impact of follicular flushing on the number of oocytes retrieved and oocytes in metaphase II in patients with poor ovarian response (POR) compared to direct aspiration.

METHODS

This prospective, comparative, randomized single center study included 208 punctures of patients with POR, submitted to assisted reproduction technology (ART) treatments. Two groups were compared; one in which double lumen needles were used (Wallace DNS1733) for follicular flushing (n=105), and one in which single lumen needles were used (Wallace ONS1733) for direct aspiration (n=103), upon the observation of ≤ 5 follicles between 15-17 mm, ≤ 4 follicles with sizes greater than 18 mm on hCG day, and ≤ 7 recovered oocytes.

RESULTS

There were no differences in age (39.07±3.88 vs. 38.11±3.43); weight (61.73±17.53 vs. 65.96±15.44); AMH (0.63±0.59 vs. 0.94±0.97); stimulation days (9.57±1.87 vs. 10.29±2.82); estradiol levels (788.94±670.82 vs. 940.16±694.69); progesterone (617.29±319.76 vs. 561.18±486.78); or number of follicles with sizes ≥18 mm (1.84±0.95 vs. 2.07±1.09). Although gonadotropin totals (1678.28±798.52 vs. 2080.45±852.36; p=0.0008), number of aspirated oocytes (3.00±2.11 vs. 3.69±2.20; p=0.02), and number of metaphase II oocytes (2.20±1.64 vs. 2.99±1.88; p=0.02) were significantly different, oocyte / follicle ratio ≥15 mm (0.93 vs. 0.98) and metaphase II oocytes / follicles ≥15 mm (0.68 vs. 0.79) were similar in both groups. The failure to capture was 16% vs. 9.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering that there was no difference in the oocyte per follicle ratio, follicular flushing did not increase the number of oocytes recovered from poor responders.

Follicular flushing using double lumen needle yields more oocytes in mono-follicular poor responders

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of follicular flushing (FF) with double lumen needle and direct follicular aspiration with single lumen needle in terms of oocyte yield in mono-follicular responder patients undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective 'quasi-experimental' study was carried out in an IVF center. Infertile women 18-42 years of age with diminished ovarian reserve who revealed a single follicle >17 mm on the day of oocyte retrieval were included in the study. Follicular flushing up to 8 times was performed in FF group using an 17-G double lumen needle. Direct follicular aspiration using a 17-G single lumen needle without FF was performed in direct aspiration group. Total numbers of collected oocytes, metaphase 2 oocytes, fertilization and pregnancy rates were compared among groups.

RESULTS

A total of 206 women underwent oocyte retrieval procedure; 106 women were assigned to FF and 100 women into direct aspiration arm. Overall oocyte retrieval rate was 50.4% in all cases. The total oocyte retrieval rate was higher (65/106, 61.9%) in FF group, than in direct aspiration group (39/100, 39%, p = 0.001). Metaphase 2 oocyte rate was also higher in FF group (47/106, 44.3% vs 29/100, 29% p = 0.04). Fertilization rates, total number of patients with a cleavage stage embryo and grade 1 cleavage embryo were similar among the groups (p>0.5). Numbers of positive hCG, ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage rates were similar among groups.

CONCLUSION

Follicular flushing using double lumen needle in mono-follicular responder patients with diminished ovarian reserve yields more oocytes and mature oocytes than direct aspiration of follicles.

Follicle flushing does not improve live birth and increases procedure time: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval improves live birth or secondary outcomes in assisted reproductive technology (ART).

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Women undergoing ART using autologous gametes.

INTERVENTION(S)

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials comparing follicle flushing to direct aspiration during oocyte retrieval published in English between 1989 to 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Live birth as primary outcome, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy, total and mature metaphase II (MII) oocytes retrieved, and operating time as secondary outcomes.

RESULT(S)

Eleven studies were included totaling 1,178 cases. No difference in live birth was demonstrated between follicle flushing and direct aspiration. Clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy were not improved with flushing. Total oocyte and MII yield were lower with flushing compared with direct aspiration. Procedure time was increased with flushing by 2 minutes in poor responders and 9 minutes in normal responders. Other sensitivity analyses did not demonstrate any changes, except the difference in MII yield was no longer statistically significant.

CONCLUSION(S)

Follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval increases procedure time and does not improve live birth or secondary ART outcomes. Randomized data do not support the use of follicle flushing as an intervention in ART.

Causes and Effects of Oocyte Retrieval Difficulties: A Retrospective Study of 10,624 Cycles

Oocyte retrieval is a routine procedure during the application of assisted reproduction technology. However, technical difficulties experienced during oocyte retrieval and the subsequent unsatisfactory number of oocytes obtained are rarely reported. The current study included 10,624 oocyte retrieval cycles from April 2015 to June 2018, and patients were followed up until February 2019. Patients were divided into two groups depending on whether the oocyte number obtained reached the >14-mm follicle number on the day of hCG administration. In the oocyte retrieval not satisfactory (ORNS) group, there were 1,294 cycles, and in the oocyte retrieval satisfactory (ORS) group, there were 9,330 cycles. ORNS patients were older, had a longer duration of infertility, had higher follicle-stimulating hormone, and were more likely to have endometriosis. The ORS group had a higher rate of the use of a follicular phase long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist long ovarian stimulation protocol and a lower rate of the use of a luteal phase short-acting GnRH agonist long protocol. The ORNS group had fewer total number of days of FSH stimulation. On human chorionic gonadotropin day, the ORNS group had higher luteinizing hormone (LH), lower estradiol, and lower progesterone levels. After oocyte retrieval, the oocyte quality and fresh cycle transplantation rate were higher in the ORNS group. An unsatisfactory oocyte retrieval number did not influence the clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, or live birth rate during the fresh cycles. The cumulative pregnancy rate and the live birth rate were lower in the ORNS group. In conclusion, with a similar number of matured follicles, ORNS was more likely to occur in ovarian dysfunction patients. The follicular phase long-acting GnRH agonist long protocol had lower oocyte retrieval difficulty during IVF/ICSI. ORNS does not affect embryo quality or the fresh cycle pregnancy rate, but it significantly reduces the cumulative pregnancy rate and the live birth rate.

Follicular flushing increases the number of oocytes retrieved in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a retrospective cohort study

Background

To investigate the impact of follicular flushing on the number of oocytes retrieved and embryo quality and to determine the optimal number of flushings for poor ovarian responders (PORs) undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Methods

This retrospective study included 291 IVF cycles in 224 patients who were PORs and had no more than three dominant follicles on retrieval day. During oocyte retrieval, follicular fluid was aspirated and examined for an oocyte. If no oocyte was identified, follicular flushing was repeated until an oocyte was retrieved or up to a maximum of nine times.

Results

The mean number of oocytes retrieved by aspiration and subsequent flushes was significantly higher than the number retrieved from the initial aspirate (1.73 ± 0.96 VS. 1.23 ± 1.00, P = 0.000). The total recovery rate was 83.7% (503/601), which was significantly higher than the 59.6% recovery rate for direct aspiration (P = 0.000). Before the 4th follicular flushing, the cumulative recovery rate increased significantly as flushing was repeated, but after the 4th flushing, the ascending trend was mitigated; and the risk ratio of recovering fewer oocytes after 4 flushes compared with after 9 flushes was 0.765 (95%CI, 0.570–1.026, P = 0.074). Significant differences were not observed in maturation rate, fertilization rate, cleavage rate or high-quality embryo rate (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Follicular flushing may increase the number of oocytes retrieved and does not have adverse effects on oocyte or embryo quality in PORs undergoing IVF. Four times may be an optimal number of follicular flushings.

Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

Follicular aspiration under transvaginal ultrasound guidance is routinely performed as part of assisted reproductive technology (ART) to retrieve oocytes for in vitro fertilisation (IVF). However, controversy as to whether follicular flushing following aspiration yields a larger number of oocytes and hence is associated with greater potential for pregnancy than aspiration only is ongoing.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of follicular flushing as compared with aspiration only performed in women undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 July 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, the CENTRAL Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). We also searched the trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing and registered trials up to 4 July 2017. We reviewed the reference lists of reviews and retrieved studies to identify further potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared follicular aspiration and flushing with aspiration alone in women undergoing ART using their own gametes. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and miscarriage rate per woman randomised.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent review authors assessed studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third review author was consulted if required. We contacted study authors as required. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a fixed-effect model, and we analysed continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) between groups presented with 95% CIs. We examined the heterogeneity of studies via the I2 statistic. We assessed the quality of evidence by using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included ten studies, with a total of 928 women. All included studies reported outcomes per woman randomised. We assessed no studies as being at low risk of bias across all domains and found that the main limitation was lack of blinding. Using the GRADE method, we determined that the quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, and we identified issues arising from risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency.Comparing follicular flushing to aspiration alone revealed probably little or no difference in the live birth rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.56; three RCTs; n = 303; I2 = 30%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that with a live birth rate of approximately 41% with aspiration alone, the equivalent live birth rate with follicular flushing is likely to lie between 29% and 52%. None of the included studies reported on the primary outcome of miscarriage rate.Data show probably little or no difference in oocyte yield (MD -0.28 oocytes, 95% CI -0.64 to 0.09; six RCTs; n = 708; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence suggests that the duration of oocyte retrieval was longer in the follicular flushing group than in the aspiration only group (MD 166.01 seconds, 95% CI 141.96 to 190.06; six RCTs; n = 714; I2 = 88%). We found no evidence of a difference in the total number of embryos per woman randomised (MD -0.10 embryos, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.15; two RCTs; n = 160; I2 = 58%; low-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in the number of embryos cryopreserved (meta-analysis not possible). Data show probably little or no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.46; five RCTs; n = 704; I2 = 49%; moderate-quality evidence). Only two studies reported on adverse outcomes: One reported no differences in patient-reported adverse outcomes (depression, anxiety, and stress), and the other reported no differences in needle blockage, vomiting, and hypotension. No studies reported on safety.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review suggests that follicular flushing probably has little or no effect on live birth rates compared with aspiration alone. None of the included trials reported on effects of follicular aspiration and flushing on the miscarriage rate. Data suggest little or no difference between follicular flushing and aspiration alone with respect to oocyte yield, total embryo number, or number of cryopreserved embryos. In addition, follicular flushing probably makes little or no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate. Evidence was insufficient to allow any firm conclusions with respect to adverse events or safety.

Direct aspiration versus follicular flushing in poor responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare follicle flushing three times with direct follicular aspiration in poor responders. Our hypothesis was that follicle flushing three times in poor responders would result in similar oocyte yield compared with direct aspiration in poor responders.

DESIGN

A randomised controlled trial performed between January 2015 and June 2015.

SETTING

University hospital.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

Eighty eligible poor responders, who were defined as having five or fewer follicles ≥13 mm in average diameter with at least two follicles having maximum diameters >17 mm on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin administration. Monofollicular cycles, including natural cycles, were excluded from the current trial.

METHODS

In the double-lumen needle group, oocyte retrieval was performed by flushing three times with 2 ml in each follicle and in the single-lumen group direct follicle aspiration was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Number of metaphase II oocytes retrieved.

RESULTS

The mean number of metaphase II oocytes was similar in both groups (1.9 ± 0.1 versus 2.1 ± 0.1, respectively). The clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were similar in both groups (32.5% versus 25% and 25% versus 22.5%, respectively). The only significant difference between the two groups was the duration of oocyte retrieval (178.4 ± 13.4 versus 236.3 ± 24.1 seconds, respectively, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Follicular flushing is time consuming and has similar results compared with direct follicle aspiration in poor responders.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Direct follicle aspiration versus flushing in poor responders yields similar metaphase II oocytes.

Follicular flushing and in vitro fertilization outcomes in the poorest responders: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval improve the number of oocytes retrieved in the poorest responders?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Follicular flushing in the poorest responders does not increase the number of oocytes retrieved and may result in lower implantation and clinical pregnancy rates.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Although previous studies have shown no beneficial effect of follicular flushing in normal responders, no study has demonstrated a detrimental effect and many IVF centers continue to perform this technique in poor responders. Data on follicular flushing in this patient group are limited, with no randomized trial to date assessing its utility in the poorest responders.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This randomized controlled trial compared the effects of follicular flushing and direct aspiration on IVF outcomes in the poorest responders, defined as having four or fewer follicles ≥12 mm on the day of hCG administration. Fifty patients were randomized during the 12-month enrollment period.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The patients were treated at an academic fertility center at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Fifty women were randomized to follicular flushing (n = 25) or direct aspiration (n = 25). One patient in the direct aspiration group was canceled prior to oocyte retrieval for premature ovulation and was included in the intent-to-treat analysis. There was no difference in the number of oocytes retrieved with a median (IQR) of 4 (2-6) in the aspiration group versus 3 (2-5) in the flushing group (95% CI: -0.78, 1.98; P = 0.41). Patients who underwent follicular flushing had significantly fewer embryos transferred {1.7 [standard deviation (SD) 0.6] versus 2.5 (SD 1.2), P = 0.03}, a lower implantation rate (5.3 versus 34.2%, P = 0.006) and a lower clinical pregnancy rate (4 versus 36%, P = 0.01). The difference in pregnancy rates remained significant after adjusting for embryos transferred.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Findings, including results for secondary outcome measures, may not be generalizable to natural IVF cycles as these were excluded from the study.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the first randomized trial to evaluate the utility of follicular flushing in the poorest responders, and the first to demonstrate a potentially detrimental effect of flushing on IVF outcomes.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT 01558141.

Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the literature and identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs), in order to answer if performing follicular flushing during the oocyte retrieval may improve the assisted reproductive technologies (ART) outcomes.

METHODS

An exhaustive electronic search was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Only RCTs comparing follicular flushing to aspiration only during ART, were included. We included 5 trials, with a total of 482 patients randomized, with median ages ranging from 30.5 to 37.1.

RESULTS

The data analyses did not show significant differences regarding live birth rate, clinical pregnancies rates, and the number of oocytes retrieved. The duration of oocyte retrieval was significantly increased in the follicular flushing group.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that there is no advantage to use of routine follicular flushing during OR in an unselected group of patients.

The use of follicle flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive technologies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

Does follicular flushing during assisted reproductive technologies (ART) improve the number of oocytes retrieved?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Follicular flushing during ART does not result in a greater number of oocytes in normal responders.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Despite limited evidence supporting the use of follicular flushing, it continues to be a common procedure in many ART clinics. Prior studies have provided conflicting results regarding the routine use of flushing during oocyte retrieval.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Systematic review and meta-analysis of 518 patients who participated in 6 randomized trials over 20 years.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Literature searches were conducted to retrieve randomized controlled trials on follicle or ovarian flushing in ART. Databases searched included PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL). Six trials that included 518 subjects matched the inclusion criteria. Studies included were limited to trials that were published, randomized trials comparing oocyte retrieval with a single-lumen pick-up needle versus follicle flushing after direct aspiration with a multi-channel oocyte pick-up needle in ART patients.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In each of the trials, measures of the oocyte yield (oocytes retrieved divided by follicles aspirated), total oocytes retrieved, fertilization or pregnancy were not different when comparing direct aspiration with follicle flushing. Four trials reported a higher operative time with follicle flushing. Results of the meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in the oocytes retrieved [weighted mean difference: 0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.13 to 0.29] or the oocyte yield (odds ratio: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.95-1.18) between the non-flushing and flushing groups.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

All trials featured an open label design and the majority of patients in this meta-analysis were normal responders. The applications of these results to poor responders, patients undergoing natural cycle ART or minimal stimulation ART should be made with caution.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Follicle flushing does not improve ART outcomes in normal-responding patients and should not be performed. This meta-analysis should solidify this recommendation as it includes the largest trial published on the subject and is consistent with a recently published Cochrane review.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported, in part, by the Program in Reproductive and Adult Endocrinology, NICHD, NIH, Bethesda, MD. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.