Patient-Controlled Remifentanil Analgesia as Alternative for Pethidine with Midazolam During Oocyte Retrieval in IVF/ICSI Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Anaesthesia considerations for assisted reproductive technology: a focused review

The global burden of infertility is significant and the evidence suggests it is increasing in prevalence worldwide. Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are fertility related treatments used to achieve pregnancy which involve the manipulation of both oocytes and sperm. The specialty is rapidly growing and anaesthesia may be required for several stages in the ART cycle. Anaesthesiologists should appreciate the processes involved and how anaesthesia care can influence safe and effective treatment outcomes. In this review article we explain the key steps of the ART cycle and the role of anaesthesiologists in this process. We also highlight key patient considerations, the implications of remote site anaesthesia and the safety concerns with provision of sedation by non-anaesthesiologists. Finally we outline a typical anaesthetic technique used in our institution for transvaginal oocyte retrieval.

Pain Management during Ultrasound Guided Transvaginal Oocyte Retrieval - A Narrative Review

Transvaginal oocyte retrieval (TVOR), done for the purpose of assisted reproduction can instigate enormous pain and therefore requires adequate analgesia with the least adverse effects. As the procedure involves retrieving oocytes for in vitro fertilisation, the effect of the anaesthetic drugs on the oocyte quality should also be considered. This review focuses on the various modes of anaesthesia and the anaesthetic drugs which can be administered safely to provide effective analgesia in normal and in special conditions such as women with pre-existing comorbidities. Medline, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane electronic databases were searched according to modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. According to this review, conscious sedation appears to be the most preferred mode of anaesthesia in women undergoing TVOR owing to fewer adverse effects, faster recovery, better patient and specialist comfort and the least effect on oocyte quality and embryo development. Combining it with paracervical block resulted in lesser consumption of the anaesthetic drug, which may have a beneficial effect on the oocyte quality.

Pain scores during oocyte retrieval for IVF/ICSI: a retrospective cohort study comparing three different analgesia protocols

OBJECTIVE

Oocyte retrieval is a painful, but essential element of IVF/ICSI. Evidence for the best method of analgesia is lacking. In the Netherlands, the three most common analgesia protocols entail administration of oral analgesics, intravenous opioids, and intramuscular opioids. The aim of this study was to compare these methods.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted at three clinics. Clinic one provided oral analgesics (1000mg paracetamol and 500mg naproxen). The main component of analgesia at clinic two was opioids intravenously (50-100µg fentanyl), and at clinic three, this was opioids intramuscularly (0.01mg/kg alfentanil). Intraprocedural pain was registered on an 11-point scale. Univariate analyses were performed to identify factors significantly associated with pain scores. A mixed linear model was used to uncover mean pain scores per clinic.

RESULTS

In total, 2,127 oocyte retrievals were included. Pain scores were lower in older women; scores decreased 0.06 points per year (95%-confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.08). Per extra follicle, scores were 0.05 points higher (95%-CI: 0.03-0.06). Endometriosis resulted in 0.45-point higher scores (95%-CI: 0.01-0.88). Primary subfertility resulted in a 0.36-point increase in scores (95%-CI: 0.15-0.56). Nulliparous women had a 0.41-point higher score than multiparous women (95%-CI: 0.19-0.63). These effects were mostly similar in all clinics. Mean pain scores were 5.6 at clinic number 1 (95%-CI: 5.3-5.8), 5.1 at clinic number 2 (95%-CI: 4.9-5.3), and 3.9 at clinic number 3 (95%-CI: 3.8-4.1).

CONCLUSION

The lowest pain scores were achieved in the clinic that used intramuscular administration of alfentanil, followed by intravenous fentanyl and, finally, non-sedative oral analgesics. Significant correlations between patient characteristics and pain scores were identified.

OUP accepted manuscript

STUDY QUESTION

What is the methodological validity and usefulness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain relief during oocyte retrieval for IVF and ICSI?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Key methodological characteristics such as randomization, allocation concealment, primary outcome measure and sample size calculation were inadequately reported in 33–43% of the included RCTs, and a broad heterogeneity is revealed in the studied outcome measures.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A Cochrane review on conscious sedation and analgesia for women undergoing oocyte retrieval concluded that the overall quality of evidence was low or very low, mainly owing to poor reporting. This, and heterogeneity of studied outcome measures, limits generalizability and eligibility of results for meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

For this review, a systematic search for RCTs on pain relief during oocyte retrieval was performed on 20 July 2020 in CENTRAL CRSO, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, Web of Science, Portal Regional da BVS and Open Grey.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

RCTs with pain or patient satisfaction as an outcome were included and analysed on a set of methodological and clinical characteristics, to determine their validity and usefulness.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Screening of 2531 articles led to an inclusion of 51 RCTs. Randomization was described inadequately in 33% of the RCTs. A low-risk method of allocation concealment was reported in 55% of the RCTs. Forty-nine percent of the RCTs reported blinding of participants, 33% of blinding personnel and 43% of blinding the outcome assessor. In 63% of the RCTs, the primary outcome was stated, but a sample size calculation was described in only 57%. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle in 73%. Treatment groups were not treated identically other than the intervention of interest in 10% of the RCTs. The primary outcome was intraoperative pain in 28%, and postoperative pain in 2%. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was the most used pain scale, in 69% of the RCTs in which pain was measured. Overall, nine other scales were used. Patient satisfaction was measured in 49% of the RCTs, for which 12 different methods were used. Occurrence of side-effects and complications were assessed in 77% and 49% of the RCTs: a definition for these was lacking in 13% and 20% of the RCTs, respectively. Pregnancy rate was reported in 55% of the RCTs and, of these, 75% did not adequately define pregnancy. To improve the quality of future research, we provide recommendations for the design of future trials. These include use of the VAS for pain measurement, use of validated questionnaires for measurement of patient satisfaction and the minimal clinically relevant difference to use for sample size calculations.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Consensus has not been reached on some methodological characteristics, for which we formulated recommendations. To prevent further heterogeneity in research on this topic, recommendations were formulated based on expert opinion, or on the most used method thus far. Future research may provide evidence to base new recommendations on.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Use of the recommendations given for design of trials on this topic can increase the generalizability of future research, increasing eligibility for meta-analyses and preventing wastefulness.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No specific funding was obtained for this study. S.B. reports being the editor-in-chief of Human Reproduction Open. For this manuscript, he was not involved with the handling process within Human Reproduction Open, or with the final decision. Furthermore, S.B. reports personal fees from Remuneration from Oxford University Press as editor-in-chief of Human Reproduction Open, personal fees from Editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to the work presented.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Comparison of Two Different Sedation Protocols during Transvaginal Oocyte Retrieval: Effects on Propofol Consumption and IVF Outcome: A Prospective Cohort Study

(1) Background: There has been various reports on the potential impact of anesthetic agents used during oocyte retrieval (OR) on the impairment of the capacity of the oocyte for fertilization and subsequent embryo quality; results have been conflicting; (2) Methods: The effects of two different sedation protocols during OR in two groups of patients undergoing In Vitro Fertilization/Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection IVF/ICSI, were compared on propofol consumption and on in vitro fertilization (IVF)/ICSI success. The study group received dexmedetomidine and fentanyl, while the control remifentanil and midazolam. In a prospective cohort study, we encompassed 72 cycles/patients. The administered dose of propofol per patient and fertilization rates were the primary outcomes, while anesthesiological parameters and IVF/ICSI outcomes were the secondary endpoints; (3) Results: We found a significant increase in propofol consumption in the study compared to the control group (77.0 ± 10.6 mg vs. 12.1 ± 6.1; p < 0.001), but fertilization rates were similar (p = 0.469). From the secondary anesthesiological outcomes, the post anesthesia discharge scores were better in the control group (15.0 (13.5 min) vs. 5.0 (10.0 min), p = 0.028). From the IVF/ICSI secondary outcome parameters, we found a higher quality of embryos on day three in the study compared to the control group (p = 0.040). The comparison of the other secondary outcomes yielded non-significant differences; (4) Conclusions: The use of dexmedetomidine, as an alternative agent during OR, was associated with higher propofol consumption as a rescue dose compared to remifentanil but was linked with similar fertilization rates and higher quality of embryos produced.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for assisted reproductive technology

BACKGROUND

Despite substantial improvements in the success of treatments through assisted reproduction technologies (ART), live birth rates remain constantly low, and practitioners are seeking aetiologic treatments to improve the outcomes.Local inflammatory response is believed to contribute to implantation failure, where prostaglandins may increase uterine contractions and decrease uterine receptivity, decreasing the possibility of an IVF cycle leading to successful embryo transfer. In this context, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been employed to inhibit the negative prostaglandin effect. They are often offered in clinical practice to improve ART outcomes, but current robust evidence on their efficacy is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as co-treatments in infertile women undergoing assisted reproduction, in terms of improving live birth and miscarriage rates.

SEARCH METHODS

We designed the search using standard Cochrane methods and performed it on databases from their inception to 20 February 2019.We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, grey literature and treatment guidelines. We handsearched reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and RCTs, and PubMed and Google for any recent trials. There were no restrictions by language or country of origin.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs on the use of NSAIDs as co-treatment during an ART cycle compared with no use or the use of placebo or any other similar drug, along with the comparison of any NSAID to another.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 11 RCTs (1884 women) suitable for inclusion in the review. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. The main limitations in the overall quality of the evidence were high risk of bias, unexplained heterogeneity and serious imprecision and indirectness.There were no data on our primary outcome - live birth per woman randomised - in any review comparisons.NSAIDs vs. placebo/no treatmentWe are uncertain of an effect on ongoing pregnancy when NSAIDs were compared to placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.59; 4 studies, 1159 participants; I² = 53%; very low quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 12% and 24%. Subgroup analysis according to the type of NSAID yielded similar results.We are also uncertain of an effect on miscarriage rates when NSAIDs were compared to placebo/no treatment (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.16; 4 studies, 525 participants; I² = 43%; very low quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of miscarriage following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 21%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 7% and 27%. The results were similar when two studies were excluded due to high risk of bias.Concerning the secondary outcomes, we are uncertain of an effect on clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.52; 6 studies, 1570 participants; I² = 49%; low-quality evidence); on ectopic pregnancy (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.89; 1 study, 72 participants); on multiple pregnancy (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.18 to 21.67; 1 study, 180 participants); and on side effects (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.02 to 119.35; 3 studies, 418 participants; I² = 79%). The evidence suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 30%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 31% and 45%. If the chance of ectopic pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 5%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 0.3% and 31%. If the chance of multiple pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 1%, the chance following the use of NSAIDs is estimated to be between 0.2 % and 24%.There were no cases of congenital anomalies during antenatal ultrasound screening of the women in one study.NSAID vs. another NSAIDOnly one study compared piroxicam with indomethacin: we are uncertain of an effect on ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.00; 1 study, 170 participants; very low quality evidence); and on miscarriage (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.28; 1 study, 170 participants; very low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy following indomethacin is assumed to be 20%, the chance following the use of piroxicam is estimated to be between 13% and 40%; while for miscarriage, the evidence suggests that if the chance following indomethacin is assumed to be 12%, the chance following the use of piroxicam is estimated to be between 5% and 27%.Similar results were reported for clinical pregnancy (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.63; 1 study, 170 participants; very low quality evidence).There were no data for the other outcomes specified in this review.NSAID vs. aspirinNo study reported this comparison.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently we are uncertain of an effect of the routine use of NSAIDs as co-treatments in infertile women undergoing assisted reproduction in order to improve ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage rates. This is based on available data from RCTs, where very low quality evidence showed that there is no single outcome measure demonstrating a benefit with their use. Further large, well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials reporting on live births are required to clarify the exact role of NSAIDs.

Randomized controlled trial of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for pain relief during transvaginal oocyte retrieval using conscious sedation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Transvaginal oocytes retrieval is an essential step in in-vitro fertilization treatment. There are different pain relief methods, but none has been shown to be superior than the others. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a non-pharmacological and non-invasive pain relief method. This study aims to compare the pain levels experienced by the women using the conscious sedation and those who had TENS in addition to conscious sedation.

Methods and analysis

This is a double-blinded randomized trial that will be carried out in a university-assisted conception unit. Women who will undergo oocyte retrieval under conscious sedation will be recruited. After randomization, women will be allocated to either the active TENS group or placebo TENS group (the TENS machine will not emit active impulse), in addition to the paracervical block and conscious sedation. The primary outcome is pain levels of women during the retrieval assessed by the visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes include satisfaction of women and postoperative side effects.

Discussion

TENS is an effective non-pharmacological and non-invasive method for pain relief in a number of clinical conditions. Both women and assisted conception unit can benefit if the addition of non-invasive, simple, and low-cost TENS application is proven to be superior than using conscious sedation and paracervical block alone.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03472430. Registered on 3 May 2018.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3227-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pain relief for women undergoing oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Various methods of conscious sedation and analgesia (CSA) have been used during oocyte retrieval for assisted reproduction. The choice of agent has been influenced by the quality of sedation and analgesia and by concerns about possible detrimental effects on reproductive outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of different methods of conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief and pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing transvaginal oocyte retrieval.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched; the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL, and trials registers in November 2017. We also checked references, and contacted study authors for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different methods and administrative protocols for conscious sedation and analgesia during oocyte retrieval.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were intraoperative and postoperative pain. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy, patient satisfaction, analgesic side effects, and postoperative complications.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 RCTs (3160 women) in five comparisons. We report the main comparisons below. Evidence quality was generally low or very low, mainly owing to poor reporting and imprecision.1. CSA versus other active interventions.All evidence for this comparison was of very low quality.CSA versus CSA plus acupuncture or electroacupunctureData show more effective intraoperative pain relief on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) with CSA plus acupuncture (mean difference (MD) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.82, 62 women) or electroacupuncture (MD 3.00, 95% CI 2.23 to 3.77, 62 women).Data also show more effective postoperative pain relief (0 to 10 VAS) with CSA plus acupuncture (MD 0.60, 95% CI -0.10 to 1.30, 61 women) or electroacupuncture (MD 2.10, 95% CI 1.40 to 2.80, 61 women).Evidence was insufficient to show whether clinical pregnancy rates were different between CSA and CSA plus acupuncture (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.86, 61 women). CSA alone may be associated with fewer pregnancies than CSA plus electroacupuncture (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.66, 61 women).Evidence was insufficient to show whether rates of vomiting were different between CSA and CSA plus acupuncture (OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.88, 62 women) or electroacupuncture (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.58, 62 women).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA versus general anaesthesia Postoperative pain relief was greater in the CSA group (0 to 3 Likert: mean difference (MD) 1.9, 95% CI 2.24 to 1.56, one RCT, 50 women).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.35, two RCTs, 108 women, I² = 0%).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in rates of vomiting (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75, one RCT, 50 women) or airway obstruction (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.22, one RCT, 58 women). Fewer women needed mask ventilation in the CSA group (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.20, one RCT, 58 women).Evidence was also insufficient to show whether groups differed in satisfaction rates (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.04, two RCTs, 108 women, I² = 34%; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for outcomes of interest.2. CSA + paracervical block (PCB) versus other interventions.CSA + PCB versus electroacupuncture + PCB Intraoperative pain scores were lower in the CSA + PCB group (0 to 10 VAS: MD -0.66, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.39, 781 women, I² = 76%; low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.29, 783 women, I² = 9%; low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus general anaesthesiaEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in postoperative pain scores (0 to 10 VAS: MD 0.49, 95% CI -0.13 to 1.11, 50 women; very low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.22 to 2.26, 51 women; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus spinal anaesthesiaPostoperative pain scores were higher in the CSA + PCB group (0 to 10 VAS: MD 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.56, 36 women; very low-quality evidence).Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.24 to 3.65, 38 women; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus PCBEvidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.96, 150 women; low-quality evidence) or satisfaction (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.68 to 3.89, 150 women, low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.CSA + PCB versus CSA only Evidence was insufficient to show whether groups differed in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.36, one RCT, 100 women; very low-quality evidence). Rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting were lower in the CS + PCB group (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.97, two RCTs, 140 women, I² = 40%; very low-quality evidence).Trialists provided no usable data for other outcomes of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence does not support one particular method or technique over another in providing effective conscious sedation and analgesia for pain relief during and after oocyte retrieval. Simultaneous use of sedation combined with analgesia such as the opiates, further enhanced by paracervical block or acupuncture techniques, resulted in better pain relief than occurred with one modality alone. Evidence was insufficient to show conclusively whether any of the interventions influenced pregnancy rates. All techniques reviewed were associated with a high degree of patient satisfaction. Women's preferences and resource availability for choice of pain relief merit consideration in practice.