Hysteroscopic-guided local endometrial injury does not improve natural cycle pregnancy rate in women with unexplained infertility: Randomized controlled trial

Efficacy of intrauterine autologous blood cell derivatives in enhancing endometrial thickness and IVF outcomes for women with recurrent implantation failure: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of intrauterine infusion of autologous blood cell derivative (ABCD) on endometrial thickness and pregnancy outcomes in a group of patients who underwent IVF with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and who had either a normal endometrium or thin endometrium.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 63 patients who experienced RIF at the Department of Reproductive Medicine and Surgery, KMC, Manipal, between January 2021 and March 2024 and who received three doses of intrauterine ABCD infusion to prepare the endometrium for frozen embryo transfer (FET).

RESULTS

We enrolled 63 RIF patients, 30 with a normal endometrium (NEM) and 33 with a thin endometrium (TEM). The endometrial thickness (EMT) significantly increased across all the groups. After 3 cycles of intrauterine ABCD infusion, the mean increases in EMT in the NEM and TEM groups were 0.77 mm and 1.36 mm, respectively, which were statistically significant. Among the 62 completed FET cycles, 40.3% were positive for beta-hCG. The clinical pregnancy rate was 33.8% (40% in the NEM group, 28.1% in the TEM group), and the live birth rate was 24.2% (30% in the NEM group, 18.8% in the TEM group). A total of 9.7% of pregnancies had spontaneous miscarriages. Moreover, the EMT did not differ between the pregnant and nonpregnant groups.

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine ABCD infusion improves the pregnancy outcomes of patients with RIF, regardless of the EMT. The results of this study revealed that endometrial receptivity improved significantly along with the EMT.

The definition of unexplained infertility: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on tests required to either diagnose unexplained infertility or use for research inclusion criteria. This leads to heterogeneity and bias affecting meta-analysis and best practice advice.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review analyses the variability of inclusion criteria applied to couples with unexplained infertility. We propose standardised criteria for use both in future research studies and clinical diagnosis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

CINAHL and MEDLINE online databases were searched up to November 2022 for all published studies recruiting couples with unexplained infertility, available in full text in the English language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected in an Excel spreadsheet. Results were analysed per category and methodology or reference range.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 375 relevant studies, only 258 defined their inclusion criteria. The most commonly applied inclusion criteria were semen analysis, tubal patency and assessment of ovulation in 220 (85%), 232 (90%), 205 (79.5%) respectively. Only 87/220 (39.5%) studies reporting semen analysis used the World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Tubal patency was accepted if bilateral in 145/232 (62.5%) and if unilateral in 24/232 (10.3%). Ovulation was assessed using mid-luteal serum progesterone in 115/205 (56.1%) and by a history of regular cycles in 87/205 (42.4%). Other criteria, including uterine cavity assessment and hormone profile, were applied in less than 50% of included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the heterogeneity among studied populations with unexplained infertility. Development and application of internationally accepted criteria will improve the quality of research and future clinical care.

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).

Oxycodone alleviates mifepristone-stimulated human endometrial stromal cell injury by activating the Keap1/Nrf2/HO-1 signaling pathway

BACKGROUND

Endometrial injury is a common disease in women caused by intrauterine inflammation, infections, and endocrine disorders. Human endometrial stromal cells (hEndoSCs) can maintain endometrial homeostasis and play an important role in repairing endometrial injury. Mifepristone, a steroidal anti-progesterone drug, is widely used in the field of reproductive medicine worldwide. Mifepristone-induced hEndoSC injury has been used to study endometrial injury in vitro. At present, the pathogenesis and potential regulatory mechanisms of oxycodone in endometrial injury remain unknown.

AIMS

We aimed to evaluate the functions of oxycodone in mifepristone-stimulated hEndoSC injury and analyze its potential molecular mechanism.

MATERIALS & METHODS

hEndoSC viability, cytotoxicity, and apoptosis were analyzed using the methyl thiazolyl tetrazolium assay, the lactate dehydrogenase assay, and flow cytometry, respectively. Furthermore, the levels of cleaved-Caspase3, Keap1, Nrf2, HO-1, and NQO1 were assessed using reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction and western blot analysis, and the release of inflammatory cytokines was determined using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay.

RESULTS

We observed that oxycodone had no adverse effects on hEndoSCs; rather, it protected hEndoSCs against mifepristone-induced endometrial damage, as confirmed by the enhanced cell viability, reduced number of apoptotic cells, decreased Caspase3 activity and inflammatory cytokine secretion, and increased Keap1/Nrf2/HO-1 pathway-related protein expression. In addition, we found that the protective effects of oxycodone on mifepristone-induced hEndoSC injury were inhibited by ML385 (a Keap1/Nrf2/HO-1 inhibitor).

CONCLUSION

In summary, we confirmed that oxycodone alleviates mifepristone-induced hEndoSC injury by activating the Keap1/Nrf2/HO-1 signaling pathway.

Immune Cell Functionality during Decidualization and Potential Clinical Application

Due to a vast influx in the secretory phase of the menstrual cycle, leukocytes represent 40-50% of the decidua at the time of implantation. Their importance for the implantation, maintenance of pregnancy, and parturition are known yet not fully understood. Thus, in idiopathic infertility, decidual immune-related factors are speculated to be the cause. In this review, the immune cell functions in the decidua were summarized, and clinical diagnostics, as well as interventions, were discussed. There is a rising number of commercially available diagnostic tools. However, the intervention options are still limited and/or poorly studied. In order for us to make big steps towards the proper use of reproductive immunology findings, we need to understand the mechanisms and especially support translational research.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs (3703 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Autologous platelet-rich plasma improves the endometrial thickness and live birth rate in patients with recurrent implantation failure and thin endometrium

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of intrauterine platelet-rich plasma (PRP) infusion on endometrial thickness and pregnancy outcomes in a population of patients with either recurrent implantation failure (RIF), thin endometrium (TE), or both (RIF + TE) METHODS: This retrospective study included patients attending the CReATe Fertility Centre between October 2018 and July 2021 who received intrauterine PRP infusion to prepare the endometrium for frozen embryo transfer. PRP was prepared from 21 cc of whole blood using the 2-step centrifugation method to yield 0.5-0.75 cc of concentrated platelets. Endometrial thickness was measured before infusion and within 72 h after infusion. All embryos transferred were tested for genetic abnormalities using next-generation sequencing.

RESULTS

A total of 85 patients, 133 cycles, and 211 infusions were included. The majority of patients (56.5%) were diagnosed with RIF, some with TE (27.0%), and the remainder with both RIF and TE (16.5%). The majority of patients received one PRP infusion per cycle (55%). The endometrial thickness significantly increased across all diagnoses with a significant increase of 1.0 mm (0.5-1.7), which was also significantly greater than in previous cycles. The clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer after intrauterine PRP infusion was significantly greater compared to previous cycles (37% vs 20%, odds ratio 2.2) as was the live birth rate (19% vs 2%, odds ratio 11.6).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that PRP should be considered a noninvasive front-line therapy for improving endometrial thickness and implantation in patients with RIF, a TE, or both.

Effect of endometrial scratching on unassisted conception for unexplained infertility: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether endometrial scratching increases the chance of live birth in women with unexplained infertility attempting to conceive without assisted reproductive technology.

DESIGN

Randomized, placebo-controlled, participant-blind, multicenter international trial.

SETTING

Fertility clinics.

PATIENT(S)

Women with a diagnosis of unexplained infertility trying to conceive without assistance.

INTERVENTION(S)

Participants were randomly assigned to receive an endometrial biopsy or a placebo procedure (placement of a biopsy catheter in the posterior fornix, without inserting it into the external cervical os). Both groups performed regular unprotected intercourse with the intention of conceiving over three consecutive study cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was live birth.

RESULT(S)

A total of 220 women underwent randomization. The live birth rate was 9% (10 of 113 women) in the endometrial-scratch group and 7% (7 of 107 women) in the control group (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.50-4.03). There were no differences between the groups in the secondary outcomes of clinical pregnancy, viable pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and miscarriage. Endometrial scratching was associated with a higher pain score on a 10-point scale (adjusted mean difference, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.53-3.60).

CONCLUSION(S)

This trial did not find evidence that endometrial scratching improves the live birth rate in women with unexplained infertility trying to conceive without assistance.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000656639.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials.

SETTING

Sixteen UK fertility units.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m² and previous trauma to the endometrium.

INTERVENTIONS

Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs.

RESULTS

One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22).

LIMITATIONS

A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Endometrial scratch injury in infertile women seeking conception through natural or intrauterine insemination cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Implantation failure is a major cause of infertility. To evaluate the value of ESI in infertile women undergoing natural or IUI cycles.

METHODS

Screening of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, other bases from inception to June 2021 using the keywords related to endometrial scratch, implantation, infertility, and IUI. RCTs of intentional endometrial injury in couples seeking fertility through natural or IUI cycles were included. All types of ESI with variable intensity (mild to moderate or severe), at different times of the cycle (preceding follicular, preceding luteal, same follicular or two times), single or double compared to none, placebo or other active interventions were included. Twenty-five studies included 4234 women (five natural [774 women], 20 IUI [3460 women]) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Extracted data included settings of the study, sample size, participant characteristics, intervention details and outcome parameters. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

ESI increased clinical pregnancy rate from 16.1% (62/386) to 26.5% (103/388) and from 11.4% (186/1627) to 22.25% (408/1833), P = 0.004 and <0.001 in natural and IUI cycles, respectively. ESI increased live birth rate from 26.6% (42/158) to 37.6% (59/157) (P = 0.250) and from 11.2% (36/322) to 18% (58/322) (P = 0.020) in natural and IUI cycles, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ESI increased both clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates significantly in natural and IUI cycles. However, there is marked methodological heterogeneity among the different studies in defining the outcome parameters.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs (4035 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Higher versus lower degree of intentional endometrial injury Evidence was insufficient to show whether there is a difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 332 participants; low-quality evidence) between hysteroscopy with endometrial injury and hysteroscopy alone. Evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy with hysteroscopy alone is 10%, then the chance with hysteroscopy with endometrial injury would be 7% to 24%. This study did not report the primary outcomes of live birth and pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Intentional endometrial injury increases embryo implantation potentials through enhanced endometrial angiogenesis†

Embryo implantation rates have been found to be enhanced by precedent endometrial injuries, but the underlying mechanism is not fully investigated. Endometrial inflammation occurs both at peri-implantation period and after endometrial injury, in which vascular reaction is a distinctive feature of inflammation. In this study, intentional endometrial injury was done with a 0.7-mm-diameter brush inserted into the left uterine horn of female ICR mice, then turned around 720° (group 2), and the right uterine horn served as the controls without endometrial injuries (group 1). Intraperitoneal equine chorionic gonadotropin 2.5 IU was injected, followed by human chorionic gonadotropin 10 IU injection, and the uterus was dissected 5 days later, roughly at the peri-implantation period. The peri-implantation endometrium was obtained, and angiogenesis protein array revealed that matrix metalloproteinase-3 (MMP-3), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), insulin-like growth factor binding protein 1 (IGFBP-1), and IL-1α were more strongly expressed in injured endometrium (group 2) than in the controls (group 1). Immunohistochemical CD34 staining was more prominently expressed in group 2 uterus, and the treatment with LY294002, a phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitor, significantly decreased CD34 immunopositive cells. The capabilities of permeability, proliferation, tube formation, and migration of mouse endometrial endothelial cells were significantly enhanced in group 2 than in group 1. Our results demonstrate that enhanced endometrial angiogenesis is a possible mechanism accounting for the increased endometrial receptivity after endometrial injury.

The impact of intentional endometrial injury on reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endometrial injury is an intentional damage made to the endometrium, usually produced by a Pipelle catheter. Over the last two decades, endometrial injury has been studied to improve implantation rates and decrease the incidence of implantation failure in invitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. Recently, additional studies of endometrial injury, performed not only in patients with implantation failure but also in intrauterine insemination cycles, have been conducted, and the endometrial injury made by hysteroscopy has been researched. The evidence describing the impact of endometrial injury is controversial; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the issue.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

Our objective is to review the research that has been done until now and perform a meta-analysis regarding endometrial injury and its influence on implantation success and pregnancy rates in patients with at least one failed IVF cycle. In particular, we aim to study the efficacy of the procedure and look for confounding factors, such as maternal age, in assessing the efficacy of endometrial injury.

SEARCH METHODS

The systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Study protocol can be assessed at PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (registration number CRD42018092773). Searches were conducted by an experienced research librarian in the following databases: MEDLINE(R) using the OvidSP interface and PUBMED, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. This review considered for inclusion randomized-controlled trials examining the success of performing local endometrial injury on IVF outcomes in women with previous failed IVF cycles.

OUTCOMES

Ten studies, comprising a total of 1260 patients, were selected. Overall, when studying the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy rates (CPRs) and live birth rates (LBRs), higher rates were shown in the endometrial injury group. However, endometrial injury did not significantly improve CPRs and LBRs, when considering sub-group analyses of studies including patients with two or more failed IVF cycles, studies examining older patients or studies which did not include hysteroscopy. There was no significant difference found regarding multiple pregnancy rates, while a handful of studies showed an improvement in miscarriage rates.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Endometrial injury should be used restrictively and not routinely in clinics. Maternal age and number of previous failed treatment cycles may be contributing factors which can influence the results when studying the effect of endometrial local injury. It is possible that the relative contribution of endometrial receptivity to the chances of implantation decreases with any additional failed cycle. The optimal study to prove the efficacy of local endometrial injury on implantation and pregnancy rates, should be a random-controlled trial studying the effect of local endometrial injury in oocyte donation cycles, in recipients with repeated implantation failure. This kind of study will conclude whether local endometrial injury is an efficient procedure with minimum confounding factors, and may assist in defining the population, even outside of donation cycles, that will benefit from the procedure.

Screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women and women undergoing assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Screening hysteroscopy in infertile women with unexplained infertility, or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) may reveal intrauterine pathology that may not be detected by routine transvaginal ultrasound. Hysteroscopy, whether purely diagnostic or operative may improve reproductive outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women undergoing evaluation for infertility, and subfertile women undergoing IUI or IVF.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL CRSO, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (September 2018). We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing screening hysteroscopy versus no intervention in subfertile women wishing to conceive spontaneously, or before undergoing IUI or IVF.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and complications following hysteroscopy. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 11 studies. We included one trial that evaluated screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy, in women with unexplained subfertility, who were trying to conceive spontaneously. We are uncertain whether ongoing pregnancy rate improves following a screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility (RR 4.30, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.07; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 10% ongoing pregnancy rate without hysteroscopy, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 23% and 81%. The included study reported no adverse events in either treatment arm. We are uncertain whether clinical pregnancy rate is improved (RR 3.80, 95% CI 2.31 to 6.24; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate increases (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.48; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), following screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility.We included ten trials that included 1836 women who had a screening hysteroscopy and 1914 women who had no hysteroscopy prior to IVF. Main limitations in the quality of evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and higher statistical heterogeneity. Eight of the ten trials had unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment.Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth rate (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.43; 6 RCTs; participants = 2745; I² = 69 %; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 22% live birth rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in live birth rates between 25% and 32%. However, sensitivity analysis done by pooling results from trials at low risk of bias showed no increase in live birth rate following a screening hysteroscopy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; 2 RCTs; participants = 1452; I² = 0%).Only four trials reported complications following hysteroscopy; of these, three trials recorded no events in either group. We are uncertain whether a screening hysteroscopy is associated with higher adverse events (Peto odds ratio 7.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.42; 4 RCTs; participants = 1872; I² = not applicable; very low-quality evidence).Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.45; 10 RCTs; participants = 3750; I² = 49%; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 28% clinical pregnancy rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 33% and 40%.There may be little or no difference in miscarriage rate following screening hysteroscopy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50; 3 RCTs; participants = 1669; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We found no trials that compared a screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy before IUI.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is no high-quality evidence to support the routine use of hysteroscopy as a screening tool in the general population of subfertile women with a normal ultrasound or hysterosalpingogram in the basic fertility work-up for improving reproductive success rates.In women undergoing IVF, low-quality evidence, including all of the studies reporting these outcomes, suggests that performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth and clinical pregnancy rates. However, pooled results from the only two trials with a low risk of bias did not show a benefit of screening hysteroscopy before IVF.Since the studies showing an effect are those with unclear allocation concealment, we are uncertain whether a routine screening hysteroscopy increases live birth and clinical pregnancy, be it for all women, or those with two or more failed IVF attempts. There is insufficient data to draw conclusions about the safety of screening hysteroscopy.

Does endometrial scratching increase the rate of spontaneous conception in couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis (Hunault > 30%)? Study protocol of the SCRaTCH-OFO trial: a randomized controlled trial

Background

In the Netherlands, couples with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis to conceive spontaneously (i.e. Hunault > 30%) are advised to perform timed intercourse for at least another 6 months. If couples fail to conceive within this period, they will usually start assisted reproductive technology (ART). However, treatment of unexplained infertility by ART is empirical and can involve significant burdens. Intentional endometrial injury, also called ‘endometrial scratching’, has been proposed to positively affect the chance of embryo implantation in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). It might also be beneficial for couples with unexplained infertility as defective endometrial receptivity may play a role in these women. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether endometrial scratching increases live birth rates in women with unexplained infertility.

Method

A multicentre randomized controlled trial will be conducted in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals starting from November 2017. A total of 792 women with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for spontaneous conception < 12 months (Hunault > 30%) will be included, of whom half will undergo endometrial scratching in the luteal phase of the natural cycle. The women in the control group will not undergo endometrial scratching. According to Dutch guidelines, both groups will subsequently perform timed intercourse for at least 6 months. The primary endpoint is cumulative live birth rate. Secondary endpoints are clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate; biochemical pregnancy loss; multiple pregnancy rate; time to pregnancy; progression to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or IVF; pregnancy complications; complications of endometrial scratching; costs and endometrial tissue parameters associated with reproductive success or failure. The follow-up duration is 12 months.

Discussion

Several small studies show a possible beneficial effect of endometrial scratching in women with unexplained infertility trying to conceive naturally or through IUI. However, the quality of this evidence is very low, making it unclear whether these women will truly benefit from this procedure. The SCRaTCH-OFO trial aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rate in women with unexplained infertility and a good prognosis for spontaneous conception < 12 months.

Trial registration

NTR6687, registered August 31st, 2017.

Protocol version

Version 2.6, November 14th, 2018.