Immersive virtual reality as tool to reduce anxiety during embryo transfer

No pain relief by virtual reality during hysterosalpingography (HSG): results from a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is virtual reality (VR) an effective non-pharmacological tool to reduce procedural pain during hysterosalpingography (HSG)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

An HSG with VR does not reduce procedural pain scores compared to an HSG without VR.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

An HSG is often experienced as painful and uncomfortable. VR has been proven successful to reduce acute procedural pain during a variety of medical procedures and interventions.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a two-centre open-label randomized controlled trial between January 2021 and October 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women scheduled for HSG as part of their infertility work-up were screened for participation. After informed consent, women were randomized between HSG with or without VR. Due to the nature of the intervention, the study was not blinded. VR was administered by a head-mounted device displaying nature movies and/or relaxation exercises. The primary endpoint was procedural pain measured using VAS (scale 0.0-10.0 cm). Procedural pain was divided into overall pain score and peak pain score during the procedure. It was measured immediately after HSG. Secondary endpoints included patient satisfaction, VR preferences, and adverse effects of VR.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We included a total of 134 women, 69 to the intervention group (HSG with VR) and 65 to the control group (HSG without VR). The mean VAS for peak pain was 6.80 cm (SD 2.25) in the intervention group versus 6.60 cm (SD 2.40) in the control group (mean difference 0.28 (95% CI -0.57, 1.12), P = 0.52). The mean VAS for overall pain was 5.00 cm (SD 2.10) in the intervention group versus 4.90 cm (SD 2.13) in the control group (mean difference 0.06 (95% CI -0.71, 0.84), P = 0.88). The expectation that VR would be a good distraction from pain during HSG was correlated with both overall and peak pain scores. When correcting for this expectation, we found that women in the intervention group reported significantly higher scores, both in peak (adjusted MD 0.58 (95% CI -0.81, 1.97), P = 0.021) and overall (adjusted MD 0.43 (95% CI -0.84, 1.71), P = 0.013) pain, compared to the control group. There were no differences in the prevalence of symptoms that were considered as adverse effects of VR.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was not blinded. Reasons for declining participation in the study were anxiety or wanting full control during HSG, which might have created selection bias. The distraction score possibly indicates that the level of VR immersiveness was not optimal due to the lack of sound and/or the type of VR applications. Future studies should investigate whether more immersive or interactive VR applications could decrease procedural pain scores during HSG.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Since VR does not reduce procedural pain, this additional tool should not be used during HSG.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

There was no external funding for this study. KR and AvH report receiving a travel grant from Merck outside the scope of this study. BM is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant (GNT1176437) and BM reports consultancy for Merck, Organon, and Norgine and travel and research funding from Merck. BM holds stock for ObsEva. CL reports receiving research grants from Merck, and Ferring. KD and VM report receiving travel and speaker's fees from Guerbet and research grants from Guerbet. VM also reports research grants from Merck and Ferring. The remaining authors have nothing to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The trial is registered prospectively in the Netherlands Trial Register (trialregister.nl registration number NL9203, currently accessible on trialsearch.who.int).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

16-01-2021.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

The first participant was enrolled on 19 January 2021.

High-flow nasal oxygen reduces the incidence of hypoxia in sedated hysteroscopy for assisted reproduction

Backgrounds and aims

Pain is the main reason for hysteroscopy failure. In day-surgical settings, hysteroscopy procedures are commonly performed with the patient under sedation. Hypoxia is the most common adverse event during sedation and can lead to severe adverse events. This study aimed to compare the incidence of hypoxia when using high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) with that when using regular nasal oxygen in patients undergoing hysteroscopy with sedation.

Materials and methods

In this single-center, prospective, randomized, single-blinded study, 960 female patients undergoing elective diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy were randomly enrolled into the following two groups: the regular nasal group [O₂ (3–6 L/min) covered by an HFNO] and the HFNO group [O₂ (30–60 L/min)] from September 2021 to December 2021. All women were sedated with propofol (1.5 mg/kg) and remifentanil (1.5 μg/kg) in the operating room. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxia (75% ≤ SpO₂ < 90%, < 60 s).

Results

HFNO decreased the incidence of hypoxia (75% ≤ SpO₂ < 90%, < 60 s), subclinical respiratory depression (90% ≤ SpO₂ < 95%) and severe hypoxia (SpO₂ < 75% for any duration or 75% ≤ SpO₂ < 90% for ≥ 60 s) from 24.38 to 0.83%, from 11.25 to 1.46% and from 3.75 to 0%, respectively (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In procedures conducted to treat female infertility, HFNO can reduce hypoxia during hysteroscopy in patients sedated with propofol, and it can prevent the occurrence of subclinical respiratory depression and severe hypoxia.