Office hysteroscopy before first in vitro fertilization. A randomized controlled trial

Clinical utility of office hysteroscopy following failed in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Despite its widespread use, in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes are challenged by implantation failure, largely due to factors such as embryo quality and endometrial receptivity. In this study, we investigated the clinical effect of office hysteroscopy (OH) on the subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in infertile women who experienced a failed IVF-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycle.

METHODS

We included 577 infertile women who underwent OH because of a history of failed ET between October 2019 and September 2021. During OH, visible endometrial polyps (EPs) were diagnosed and removed by curette or biopsy forceps; chronic endometritis (CE) was diagnosed by histopathology and immunohistochemistry and treated with oral doxycycline (0.2 g/d) for 14 days. According to the hysteroscopic findings and endometrial pathology with immunohistochemistry, patients were divided into three groups: group A (n = 161) had CE with or without EPs, group B (n = 156) had EPs only, and group C (n = 260) had no CE or EPs.

RESULTS

In the following FET cycle, the implantation rates were 47%, 51%, and 45% (P = 0.411); the clinical pregnancy rates were 56%, 62%, and 55% (P = 0.436); the live birth rates were 45%, 51%, and 42% (P = 0.205); and the miscarriage rates were 18%, 16%, and 22% (P = 0.497) in groups A, B, and C, respectively. There were no significant differences among groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

OH is helpful for diagnosis and treatment of abnormal intrauterine environment in women with a failed IVF cycle and further improves their pregnancy outcome in the following FET.

Guideline No. 446: Hysteroscopic Surgery in Fertility Therapy

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the indications, benefits, and risks of hysteroscopy in the management of patients with infertility and provide guidance to gynaecologists who manage common conditions in these patients.

TARGET POPULATION

Patients with infertility (inability to conceive after 12 months of unprotected intercourse) undergoing investigation and treatment.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Hysteroscopic surgery can be used to diagnose the etiology of infertility and improve fertility treatment outcomes. All surgery has risks and associated complications. Hysteroscopic surgery may not always improve fertility outcomes. All procedures have costs, which are borne either by the patient or their health insurance provider.

EVIDENCE

We searched English-language articles from January 2010 to May 2021 in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Science Direct, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (see Appendix B for MeSH search terms).

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Gynaecologists who manage common conditions in patients with infertility.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

When offering hysteroscopic surgery to patients with infertility, ensure it improves the live birth rate.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

Outpatient hysteroscopy impact on subsequent assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis in patients with normal transvaginal sonography or hysterosalpingography images

BACKGROUND

Standard management for intrauterine lesions typically involves initial imaging followed by operative hysteroscopy for suspicious findings. However, the efficacy of routine outpatient hysteroscopy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) remains uncertain due to a lack of decisive high-quality evidence. This study aimed to determine whether outpatient hysteroscopy is beneficial for infertile women who have unremarkable imaging results prior to undergoing ART.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines, incorporating data up to May 31, 2023, from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The primary outcome assessed was the live birth rate, with secondary outcomes including chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy rates, and miscarriage rates. Statistical analysis involved calculating risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals and assessing heterogeneity with the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

The analysis included ten randomized control trials. Receiving outpatient hysteroscopy before undergoing ART was associated with increased live birth (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03-1.45, I2 61%) and clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.27 95% CI 1.10-1.47, I2 53%). Miscarriage rates did not differ significantly (RR 1.25, CI 0.90-1.76, I2 50%). Subgroup analyses did not show a significant difference in clinical pregnancy rates when comparing normal versus abnormal hysteroscopic findings (RR 1.01, CI 0.78-1.32, I2 38%). We analyzed data using both intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches, and our findings were consistent across both analytical methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Office hysteroscopy may enhance live birth and clinical pregnancy rates in infertile women undergoing ART, even when previous imaging studies show no apparent intrauterine lesions. Treating lesions not detected by imaging may improve ART outcomes. The most commonly missed lesions are endometrial polyps, submucosal fibroids and endometritis, which are all known to affect ART success rates. The findings suggested that hysteroscopy, given its diagnostic accuracy and patient tolerability, should be considered in the management of infertility.

DATABASE REGISTRATION

The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systemic Review database (CRD42023476403).

A Controversial Old Topic Revisited: Should Diagnostic Hysteroscopy Be Routinely Performed Prior to the First IVF Cycle? A Systematic Review and Updated Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the impact of performing diagnostic hysteroscopy before the first in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle on the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed-MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, Gynecology and Fertility Specialized Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were consulted from inception to June 2022 using combinations of the relevant Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords. The search included major clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov and the European EudraCT registry without language restrictions. In addition, manual cross-reference searches were also performed.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

All randomized and controlled clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies comparing the probability of pregnancy and live birth among patients who underwent diagnostic hysteroscopy with possible treatment of any abnormal findings before the IVF cycle and patients who underwent the IVF cycle directly have been considered for inclusion. Studies with insufficient information on the results of interest or without the necessary information to perform the pooled analysis, those without a control group or with end points considered different than those of interest, were excluded. The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022354764).

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis, reporting the reproductive outcomes of 5056 patients undergoing ART treatment for the first time. Selected studies included 6 randomized controlled trials, 1 prospective cohort study, 3 retrospective cohort studies, and 2 case-control studies. The likelihood of clinical pregnancy of patients undergoing hysteroscopy before IVF was significantly higher than those without hysteroscopy (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence CI 1.16-1.91; I2 = 69%). (odds ratio [OR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.22-1.88; I2 59%). Eight studies included live birth rate; no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups for this outcome (OR,1.24; 95% CI, 0.94-1.64; I2 = 62%). Subsequently, a sensitivity analysis was performed, including only randomized clinical trials. Clinical pregnancy OR of patients undergoing hysteroscopy before starting the IVF cycle remained significantly higher than the control group (OR,1.62, 95% CI, 1.15-2.29; I2 = 62%). Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.

CONCLUSION

The available scientific evidence suggests that performing routine hysteroscopy before the first IVF attempt improves the clinical pregnancy rate; however, the live birth rate is unaffected.

Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†

STUDY QUESTION

Which add-ons are safe and effective to be used in ART treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Forty-two recommendations were formulated on the use of add-ons in the diagnosis of fertility problems, the IVF laboratory and clinical management of IVF treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The innovative nature of ART combined with the extremely high motivation of the patients has opened the door to the wide application of what has become known as 'add-ons' in reproductive medicine. These supplementary options are available to patients in addition to standard fertility procedures, typically incurring an additional cost. A diverse array of supplementary options is made available, encompassing tests, drugs, equipment, complementary or alternative therapies, laboratory procedures, and surgical interventions. These options share the common aim of stating to enhance pregnancy or live birth rates, mitigate the risk of miscarriage, or expedite the time to achieving pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

ESHRE aimed to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations focusing on the safety and efficacy of add-ons currently used in fertility procedures in order to improve the quality of care for patients with infertility.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

ESHRE appointed a European multidisciplinary working group consisting of practising clinicians, embryologists, and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of infertility. Patient representatives were included in the working group. To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, recommendations were based on the professional experience and consensus of the working group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 46 independent international reviewers. A total of 272 comments were received and incorporated where relevant.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The multidisciplinary working group formulated 42 recommendations in three sections; diagnosis and diagnostic tests, laboratory tests and interventions, and clinical management.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Of the 42 recommendations, none could be based on high-quality evidence and only four could be based on moderate-quality evidence, implicating that 95% of the recommendations are supported only by low-quality randomized controlled trials, observational data, professional experience, or consensus of the development group.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

These guidelines offer valuable direction for healthcare professionals who are responsible for the care of patients undergoing ART treatment for infertility. Their purpose is to promote safe and effective ART treatment, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on realistic expectations. The guidelines aim to ensure that patients are fully informed about the various treatment options available to them and the likelihood of any additional treatment or test to improve the chance of achieving a live birth.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESHRE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. K.L. reports speakers fees from Merck and was part of a research study by Vitrolife (unpaid). T.E. reports consulting fees from Gynemed, speakers fees from Gynemed and is part of the scientific advisory board of Hamilton Thorne. N.P.P. reports grants from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare, speakers fees from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare. S.R.H. declares being managing director of Fertility Europe, a not-for-profit organization receiving financial support from ESHRE. I.S. is a scientific advisor for and has stock options from Alife Health, is co-founder of IVFvision LTD (unpaid) and received speakers' fee from the 2023 ART Young Leader Prestige workshop in China. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos and Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex and Organon, travel fees from Gedeon Richter. The other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or bedeemedinclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.Theydo not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

High prevalence of chronic endometritis is associated with metabolic abnormality and reduced live birth rate among IVF women with non-uniform endometrial echogenicity

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of chronic endometritis (CE) among women with non-uniform endometrial echogenicity, and to evaluate the association between CE and metabolic characteristics as well as pregnancy outcomes in the subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

University-based hospitals and an academic medical center.

PATIENTS

A total of 315 patients included in this research underwent hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy before the first FET cycle after whole embryos freezing. Patients were divided into CE (histopathologic CE or hysteroscopic CE) and non-CE groups.

INTERVENTION(S)

Freeze-all strategy, hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Baseline and cycle characteristics, hysteroscopic, and histopathological profile, as well as pregnancy outcomes.

RESULTS

The prevalence of histopathologic CE and hysteroscopic CE were 78.1% and 34.9%, respectively. CE was associated with higher homocysteine level and BMI, independent of insulin response and dyslipidemia. High homocysteine level and BMI were risk factors for histopathologic CE (OR: 1.182; 95% CI: 1.01-1.384; p = .037) and hysteroscopic CE (OR: 1.117; 95% CI: 1.041-1.199; p = .002), respectively. Histopathologic CE was a risk factor for live birth (OR:2.167; 95% CI: 1.037-4.525; p = .04), and hysteroscopic CE was an independent risk factor for both live birth (OR: 4.239; 95% CI: 1.929-9.313; p = .001) and cumulative live birth (OR: 3.963; 95% CI: 1.875-8.376; p = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Infertile women with non-uniform endometrial echogenicity have a high prevalence of CE which significantly reduces the live birth rate. Diagnosing CE by hysteroscopy is important to assess the cumulative probability of pregnancy in IVF patients.

Effect of the decision to perform hysteroscopy on asymptomatic patients before undergoing assisted reproduction technologies-a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Routine hysteroscopic evaluation before assisted reproductive technology treatment is a novel approach with the potential to reduce assisted reproductive technology failure even in the absence of evidence of uterine pathology. Following the publication of several relatively high-quality trials on this topic, we sought to determine if this practice is beneficial.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Web of Science, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from each database's inception until May 31, 2022 with our search strategy, attempting to locate all randomized controlled trials assessing the use of hysteroscopy in otherwise asymptomatic women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included only randomized controlled trials that included at least one of our selected outcomes, and we excluded any studies with suspicion of pathology before the time of hysteroscopy, other than knowledge of the patient's infertility. We included all the aforementioned studies regardless of procedures or modifications performed as a result of hysteroscopic findings. Our initial search yielded 1802 results, which were reduced to 1421 after removal of duplicates. Ultimately, 11 studies were found to meet our criteria and were included in our quantitative synthesis.

METHODS

We used ReviewManager software, version 5.4.1 to analyze the data, which we imported after manually gathering from the 11 studies. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were imported as standard deviations. Pooled analysis was described as a mean difference, relative to 95 % confidence interval in cases of continuous data. Dichotomous outcomes were analyzed using risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. In homogeneous outcomes, we used a fixed-effects model, and in heterogeneous outcomes we used a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Our results showed that hysteroscopy was associated with significant improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.27 [1.11-1.45]; P<.001). We found no differences between the hysteroscopy group and the control group in live birth rate (risk ratio, 1.26 [0.99-1.59]; P=.06), miscarriage rate (risk ratio, 0.99 [0.81-1.19]; P=.88), fertilization rate (risk ratio, 1.01 [0.93-1.09]; P=.88), incidence of multiple gestations (risk ratio, 1.29 [0.98-1.71]; P=.07), number of embryos transferred (mean difference, 0.04 [-0.18 to 0.26]; P=.73), chemical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.01 [0.86-1.17]; P=.93), and number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference, 0.44 [-0.11 to 0.98]; P=.11).

CONCLUSION

We observed an improvement in the clinical pregnancy rate, but no significant improvement in the live birth rate with routine hysteroscopy before assisted reproductive technology treatment. We believe this does not represent sufficient evidence to recommend routine hysteroscopy for otherwise asymptomatic patients before assisted reproductive technology treatment at this time.

Evidence and consensus on technical aspects of embryo transfer

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound-guided embryo transfer (US-GET) is a widely performed procedure, but standards for the best practice are not available.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This document aims to provide an overview of technical aspects of US-GET after considering the published data and including the preparation for the embryo transfer (ET) procedure, the actual procedure, the post-procedure care, associated pathologies, complications and risks, quality assurance and practitioners’ performance.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search for evidence on key aspects of the ET procedure was carried out from database inception to November 2021. Selected papers (n = 359) relevant to the topic were analysed by the authors. The following key points were considered in the papers: whether ultrasound (US) practice standards were explained, to what extent the ET technique was described and whether complications or incidents and how to prevent such events were reported. In the end, 89 papers could be used to support the recommendations in this document, which focused on transabdominal US-GET.

OUTCOMES

The relevant papers found in the literature search were included in the current document and described according to the topic in three main sections: requirements and preparations prior to ET, the ET procedure, and training and competence for ET. Recommendations are provided on preparations prior to ET, equipment and materials, ET technique, possible risks and complications, training and competence. Specific aspects of the laboratory procedures are covered, in particular the different loading techniques and their potential impact on the final outcomes. Potential future developments and research priorities regarding the ET technique are also outlined.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Many topics were not covered in the literature review and some recommendations were based on expert opinions and are not necessarily evidence based.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

ET is the last procedural step in an ART treatment and is a crucial step toward achieving a pregnancy and live birth. The current paper set out to bring together the recent developments considering all aspects of ET, especially emphasizing US quality imaging. There are still many questions needing answers, and these can be subject of future research.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding. ADA has received royalties from CRC Press and personal honorarium from Cook, Ferring and Cooper Surgical. The other co-authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.