Systematic and standardized hysteroscopic endometrial injury for treatment of recurrent implantation failure

The role of endometrial scratching prior to in vitro fertilization: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

RESEARCH QUESTION

To evaluate the role of endometrial scratching performed prior to an embryo transfer cycle on the probability of pregnancy compared to placebo/sham or no intervention.

DESIGN

A computerized literature (using a specific search strategy) search was performed across the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, SCOPUS and WEB OF SCIENCE up to June 2023 in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of endometrial scratching prior to an embryo transfer cycle on the probability of pregnancy, expressed either as live birth, ongoing pregnancy or clinical pregnancy (in order of significance) compared to placebo/sham or no intervention. Data were pooled using random-effects or fixed-effects model, depending on the presence or not of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the population studied in each RCT, as well as on the timing and method of endometrial biopsy. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADEPro tool.

RESULTS

The probability of live birth was significantly higher in embryo transfer cycles after endometrial scratching as compared to placebo/sham or no intervention (relative risk-RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.20; heterogeneity: I2=46.30%, p<0.001, 28 studies; low certainty). The probability of ongoing pregnancy was not significantly difference between the two groups (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.98-1.18; heterogeneity: I2=27.44%, p=0.15, 11 studies; low certainty). The probability of clinical pregnancy was significantly higher in embryo transfer cycles after endometrial scratching as compared to placebo/sham or no intervention (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06-1.18; heterogeneity: I2=47.48%, p<0.001, 37 studies; low certainty). A subgroup analysis was performed based on the time that endometrial scratching was carried out. When endometrial scratching was performed during the menstrual cycle prior to the embryo transfer cycle a significantly higher probability of live birth was present (RR: 1.18, 95% CI:1.09-1.27; heterogeneity: I2=39.72%, p<0.001, 21 studies; moderate certainty). On the contrary, no effect on the probability of live birth was present when endometrial injury was performed during the embryo transfer cycle (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.67-1.15; heterogeneity: I2=65.18%, p=0.33, 5 studies; low certainty). In addition, a higher probability of live birth was only present in women with previous IVF failures (RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.20-1.53; heterogeneity: I2=0%, p<0.001, 13 studies; moderate certainty) with evidence suggesting that the more IVF failures the more likely endometrial scratching to be beneficial (p=0.004). The number of times endometrial scratching was performed, as well as the type of instrument used did not appear to affect the probability of live birth.

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial scratching during the menstrual cycle prior to an embryo transfer cycle can lead to a higher probability of live birth in patients with previous IVF failures.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023433538 (18 Jun 2023).

Endometrial scratching during hysteroscopy in women undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Endometrial scratching (ES) during hysteroscopy before embryotransfer (ET) remains doubtable on whether it benefits the reproductive outcomes. The optimal technique is not clear and repeated implantation failure as a challenging field in in vitro fertilization (IVF) seems to be the springboard for clinicians to test its effectiveness.

Methods

Medline, PMC, ScienceDirect, Scopus, CENTRAL, Google Scholar were searched from their inception up to April 2023 for studies to evaluate the effectiveness of adding endometrial scratching during hysteroscopy before ET.

Results

The initial search yielded 959 references, while 12 eligible studies were included in the analyses, involving 2,213 patients. We found that hysteroscopy and concurrent ES before ET resulted in a statistically significant improvement in clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) [RR = 1.50, (95% CI 1.30-1.74), p < 0.0001] and live birth rate (LBR) [RR = 1.67, (95% CI 1.30-2.15), p < 0.0001] with no statistically significant difference on miscarriage rate [RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.52-1.22), p = 0.30].

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis suggests that hysteroscopy with concurrent ES may be offered in IVF before ET as a potentially improving manipulation. Future randomized trials comparing different patient groups would also provide more precise data on that issue, to clarify specific criteria in the selection of patients.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42023414117).

Efficacy of intrauterine infusion therapy before embryo transfer in recurrent implantation failure: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Previous studies of intrauterine infusion therapy in recurrent implantation failure (RIF) patients have shown conflicting results, and there is a lack of head-to-head horizontal comparisons between different drugs. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of four intrauterine infusion drugs, including human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG), granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) and autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), in improving pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients through the network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of preimplantation intrauterine infusion for RIF were searched in the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline and CINAHL. Meanwhile, relevant data were extracted and Stata 15.0 software was applied to statistical analysis. A total of 21 studies with a sample size of 2917 cases were included in this study. Clinical pregnancy rate network meta-analysis showed that, intrauterine infusion of all four drugs is significantly better than the blank and placebo groups, while only PRP could significantly increase live birth rate compared with the blank and placebo groups. The SUCRA plots of clinical pregnancy and live birth rates showed a higher ranking of PRP and PBMCs. Early abortion intervention analysis found that only G-CSF is significantly better than the blank and placebo groups, and the SUCRA plot of G-CSF showed the highest ranking. All these findings confirmed that all four intrauterine infusion drugs can improve pregnancy outcomes in RIF patients to varying degrees, with PRP being the most effective. Further prospective, large-scale and high-quality RCTs are still necessary to determine the exact subgroups of benefit for the different drugs.

Impact of antibiotic treatment for chronic endometritis on pregnancy outcomes in women with reproductive failures (RIF and RPL): A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of antibiotic treatment for chronic endometritis (CE) on reproductive outcomes.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients

Women with reproductive failures, including recurrent implantation failure (RIF), and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).

Interventions

Literature searches were performed using three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) until 1 December 2021 (without date restriction). The following comparators were included: women with CE receiving antibiotics vs. untreated controls; women with cured CE vs. women with normal endometrial histology (negative for CE); and women with cured CE vs. women with persistent CE (PCE). The summary measures were indicated as odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Main outcome measures

These include on-going pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and miscarriage rate/pregnancy loss rate (MR/PLR).

Results

A total of 2,154 women (from twelve studies) were enrolled. Compared with the control group, women with CE receiving antibiotics did not show a statistically significant difference in OPR/LBR (P = 0.09) and CPR (P = 0.36), although there was a lower MR (P = 0.03). Women with cured CE have higher OPR/LBR (OR 1.57) and CPR (OR 1.56) in comparison with those with non-CE. There was a statistically significantly higher OPR/LBR (OR 6.82, P < 0.00001) and CPR (OR 9.75, P < 0.00001) in women with cured CE vs. those with persistent CE.

Conclusion

While antibiotic treatment is a sensible option to cure CE, more well-designed prospective studies are needed to evaluate the reproductive impact of antibiotic treatment. Cured CE provides high-quality maternal conditions for subsequent embryo transfer and successful pregnancy.

Emerging trends and frontier research on recurrent implantation failure: a bibliometric analysis

Background

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) has been recognized to be a major obstacle to the successful application of artificial reproduction technologies. In this study, the trends in RIF research were examined through a bibliometric analysis evaluating relevant literature quantitatively and qualitatively.

Methods

A total of 1,764 publications from 2000 to 2020 were downloaded from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Relevant articles were searched using the term "recurrent implantation failure" and other synonyms of this term. Using Excel 2013, CiteSpace V, and VOSviewer 1.6.10 software, data extracted from the literature, including countries/regions, institutions, journals, keywords, and trends, were analyzed. Next, a clustered network was constructed based on 46,718 references cited by the 1,764 publications to determine the top 10 cocited articles.

Results

The annual number of publications on RIF progressively increased over time. The highest number of publications were from the United States. Analysis of the cocited reference cluster showed that "endometrial injury", "platelet-rich plasma", "chronic endometritis" and "extracellular vesicles" were the hotspots in RIF research. Burst detection analysis of the top keywords showed that "hysteroscopy" and "improvement" are emerging research foci.

Conclusions

This study clarifies the current research status and evolution of research in the field of RIF. New therapeutic interventions designed to improve pregnancy outcomes are the focus of current research and are expected to dominate future research in the field of RIF.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF)

BACKGROUND

Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in the process of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury (also known as endometrial scratching), defined as intentional damage to the endometrium, can increase the chance of pregnancy in women undergoing IVF.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and frozen embryo transfer.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2020 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and two trial registries. We also checked the reference sections of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF, versus no intervention or a sham procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two independent review authors screened studies, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required. Due to the high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, the primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at a low risk of bias for selection bias and other bias. Sensitivity analysis was then performed including all studies. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage.

MAIN RESULTS

Endometrial injury versus control (no procedure or a sham procedure) A total of 37 studies (8786 women) were included in this comparison. Most studies performed endometrial injury by pipelle biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle before the IVF cycle. The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and included eight studies. The effect of endometrial injury on live birth is unclear as the result is consistent with no effect, or a small reduction, or an improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I² = 15%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth with IVF is usually 27%, then the chance when using endometrial injury would be somewhere between < 27% and 32%. Similarly, the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy is unclear (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy from IVF is normally 32%, then the chance when using endometrial injury before IVF is between 31% and 37%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy due to high risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity. Endometrial injury probably results in little to no difference in chance of miscarriage (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), and this result was similar in the sensitivity analysis that included all studies. The result suggests that if the chance of miscarriage with IVF is usually 6.0%, then when using endometrial injury it would be somewhere between 4.2% and 6.8%. Endometrial injury was associated with mild to moderate pain (approximately 4 out of 10), and was generally associated with some minimal bleeding. The evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and therefore all primary analyses were graded as moderate certainty. Higher versus lower degree of injury Only one small study was included in this comparison (participants = 129), which compared endometrial injury using two different instruments in the cycle prior to the IVF cycle: a pipelle catheter and a Shepard catheter. This trial was excluded from the primary analysis due to risk of bias. In the sensitivity analysis, all outcomes reported for this study were graded as very-low certainty due to risk of bias, and as such we were not able to interpret the study results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effect of endometrial injury on live birth and clinical pregnancy among women undergoing IVF is unclear. The results of the meta-analyses are consistent with an increased chance, no effect and a small reduction in these outcomes. We are therefore uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the chance of live birth or clinical pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. Endometrial injury does not appear to affect the chance of miscarriage. It is a somewhat painful procedure associated with a small amount of bleeding. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the routine use of endometrial injury for women undergoing IVF.

Efficacy of therapies and interventions for repeated embryo implantation failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of the different therapeutic options for repeated embryo implantation failure (RIF) on a subsequent IVF cycle outcome. Twenty-two RCTs and nineteen observational studies were included. Pooling of results showed a beneficial effect of intrauterine PBMC infusion on both CPR (RR 2.18; 95% CI 1.58-3.00; p < 0.00001; OR 2.03; 95% CI 1.22-3.36; p = 0.006) and LBR (RR 2.41; 95% CI 1.40-4.16; p = 0.002; OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.13-12.29; p = 0.03), of subcutaneous G-CSF administration on CPR (RR 2.29; 95% CI 1.58-3.31; p < 0.0001) and of intrauterine PRP infusion on CPR (RR 2.45; 95% CI 1.55-3.86; p = 0.0001). Observational studies also demonstrated a positive effect of IVIG and intrauterine hCG infusion on both CPR and LBR and of atosiban on CPR. Studies investigating intrauterine G-CSF infusion, LMWH, intravenous intralipid, hysteroscopy, blastocyst-stage ET, ZIFT, PGT-A and AH failed to observe an impact on IVF outcome. The quality of the evidence that emerged from RCTs focused on intrauterine PBMC infusion and subcutaneous G-CSF administration was moderate. For all other therapies/interventions it varied from low to very low. In conclusion, intrauterine PBMC infusion and subcutaneous G-CSF administration are the most promising therapeutic options for RIF. However, further well conducted RCTs are necessary before their introduction into clinical practice.

The impact of endometrial injury on reproductive outcomes: results of an updated meta-analysis

Background

It is still unclear whether endometrial injury (EI) has a beneficial effect on reproductive outcomes, and if so, the optimal procedure characteristics are not clear. All previous papers concluded that more research is needed, and as additional studies were recently published, the insights on EI have changed significantly.

Methods

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, to identify randomized controlled trials examining the EI effect on IVF outcomes in women at least one previous failed cycle.

Results

2015 references were identified through database searching. Ultimately, 17 studies were included, involving 3016 patients. Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (RR = 1.19, [95% CI 1.06-1.32], P = .003) and live birth rate (LBR) (RR = 1.18, [95%CI 1.04-1.34], P = .009) were significantly improved after EI. Number of previous failed cycles, maternal age, and hysteroscopy were found to be relevant confounders. Higher CPR and LBR were found when EI was performed twice, while performing EI once did not significantly improve reproductive rates.

Conclusion

According to the present meta-analysis, EI may be offered to younger patients with few previous failed cycles and should be additionally studied in an RCT comparing different timing and more than one EI before treatment.

Endometrial scratching for infertility: The never-ending story

Infertility, defined as the absence of spontaneous conception after 12 months of unprotected sexual intercourses, is a major public health issue. It is estimated that up to 15% of couples suffer from infertility and that most of them will refer for counselling to infertility specialists. Concurrently, the demands for assisted reproduction techniques are steadily increasing worldwide. Endometrial scratching is an intentional endometrial injury offered to infertile women with the purpose of enhancing endometrial receptivity before intrauterine insemination or embryo transfer. Endometrial scratching is a simple and low-cost procedure that consists in a voluntary mechanical disruption of endometrial lining, with minor patients' discomfort. Whilst the data about the effectiveness of endometrial scratching in intrauterine insemination is low but coherent, there is a great deal of confusion about the role of endometrial scratching before IVF-embryo transfer cycles. The aim of this commentary is to summarize the current evidence about the effectiveness of endometrial scratching before assisted reproduction techniques and future perspectives about the use of this technique in infertile women.