Use of iotrolan versus ethiodized poppy-seed oil in hysterosalpingography

Contrast media for hysterosalpingography: systematic search and review providing new guidelines by the Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology

OBJECTIVES

Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is widely used for evaluating the fallopian tubes; however, controversies regarding the use of water- or oil-based iodine-based contrast media (CM) remain. The aim of this work was (1) to discuss reported pregnancy rates related to the CM type used, (2) to validate the used CM in published literature, (3) to discuss possible complications and side effects of CM in HSG, and (4) to develop guidelines on the use of oil-based CM in HSG.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted for original RCT studies or review/meta-analyses on using water-based and oil-based CM in HSG with fertility outcomes and complications. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 reviews/meta-analyses were analyzed. Grading of the literature was performed based on the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2011 classification.

RESULTS

An approximately 10% higher pregnancy rate is reported for oil-based CM. Side effects are rare, but oil-based CM have potentially more side effects on the maternal thyroid function and the peritoneum.

CONCLUSIONS

1. HSG with oil-based CM gives approximately 10% higher pregnancy rates. 2. External validity is limited, as in five of nine RCTs, the CM used is no longer on the market. 3. Oil-based CM have potentially more side effects on the maternal thyroid function and on the peritoneum. 4. Guideline: Maternal thyroid function should be tested before HSG with oil-based CM and monitored for 6 months after.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Oil-based CM is associated with an approximately 10% higher chance of pregnancy compared to water-based CM after HSG. Although side effects are rare, higher iodine concentration and slower clearance of oil-based CM may induce maternal thyroid function disturbance and peritoneal inflammation and granuloma formation.

KEY POINTS

• It is unknown which type of contrast medium, oil-based or water-based, is the optimal for HSG. • Oil-based contrast media give a 10% higher chance of pregnancy after HSG, compared to water-based contrast media. • From the safety perspective, oil-based CM can cause thyroid dysfunction and an intra-abdominal inflammatory response in the patient.

Ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® hysterosalpingography: A prospective study on pregnancy and complication rates

BACKGROUND

Fluoroscopic hysterosalpingography (HSG) with Lipiodol® is safe and has a therapeutic effect on fertility: transient in endometriosis-related infertility and sustained in unexplained infertility. Ultrasound is replacing fluoroscopy as the preferred imaging modality for HSG due to comfort and radiation safety (no ionising radiation). The safety of ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® HSG is uncertain.

AIMS

Prospectively observe pregnancy and complication rates after ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® HSG.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-centre prospective study of women with unexplained infertility undergoing ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® uterine bathing and tubal flushing after tubal patency confirmed with ExEm® Foam HyFoSy (hysterosalpingo-foam-sonography). Pregnancy outcomes at six months and serum and urinary thyroid function at one, three and eight weeks were recorded. Pain scores were recorded during and immediately after HSG. Descriptive statistics are reported.

RESULTS

Fifty-two participants were enrolled between July 2019 and April 2021, median age 33 years (range 21-45). Only 45 (87%, 45/52) completed the Lipiodol® HSG; 5/7 experienced intravasation during initial HyFoSy. Of 30 women at follow-up, 57% had biochemical (17/30, 95% CI 37%-75%), 53% clinical (16/30 95% CI 34%-72%) and 35% ongoing pregnancies (11/30, 95% CI 20%-56%). The rate of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) at two months was 41% (7/17). One intravasation event occurred during Lipiodol® HSG (2%, 1/45). Median pain score was 5/10 (range 0-9, interquartile range 2.5-7). No anaphylaxis, infection or oil embolism was observed.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® HSG was safe, with pregnancy rates comparable to previous studies of fluoroscopic guidance. Rates of intravasation and SCH were also similar, confirming the need to monitor thyroid function.

Assessment of contrast intravasation in patients investigated by fluoroscopic hysterosalpingograms: A two-year retrospective audit in Western Australia

INTRODUCTION

Intravasation on hysterosalpingogram (HSG) is defined by the flow of injected contrast from the uterine cavity into adjacent myometrial vessels. Evidence suggests intravasation can result in consequences such as pulmonary and cerebral embolisms. However, adverse events are poorly reported across published studies. Reported intravasation ranges from 0.0% to 13%, with higher rates attributed to oil-soluble contrast medium (OSCM) use. Recent reviews of OSCM's fertility-enhancing benefits have prompted rapid clinical uptake by fertility specialists worldwide. This instigates increased concern for intravasation and its associated sequelae. We aim to assess the prevalence of intravasation in fluoroscopic HSGs and its reporting in Western Australia (WA).

METHODS

A two-year retrospective analysis of all fluoroscopic HSGs in one public teaching hospital within WA was conducted. All HSGs were retrieved from the public radiology information system and a blinded method was utilised to verify the presence and grading of intravasation in captured HSG images. Grading of intravasation was attributed by anatomical spread: 1 to myometrium, 2 to parametrium and 3 to para-iliac vessels. Results were subsequently compared with reported intravasation to assess for discrepancies.

RESULTS

Of 308 successful HSGs, an intravasation rate of 7.1% was identified. Of these cases, 45% were reported and 32% were graded. Majority (73%) of intravasation events were classified as grade 1, with 9.0% and 18% of cases classified as grade 2 and 3, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Under-reporting of intravasation emphasises a need for increased vigilance of radiologists. Standardised classification can provide interpretational consistency and should be considered to improve safety in future practice.

What are the risks associated with lipiodol hysterosalpingography? A literature review

INTRODUCTION

Hysterosalpingography is widely used as a first-line investigation for infertility, and may also be therapeutic, increasing pregnancy rates. Aqueous and oil-based contrast agents can be used. Some studies suggest Lipiodol hysterosalpingography has a greater therapeutic effect on fertility than aqueous contrast, though this is contentious. There are additionally safety concerns surrounding Lipiodol hysterosalpingography. This review summarises the adverse effects associated with Lipiodol hysterosalpingography, particularly on thyroid function.

KEY FINDINGS

331 articles were identified. Of these, 46 met inclusion criteria. 3 further articles were identified from reference lists. Complications typically cited in the literature include pain, intravasation, life-threatening oil embolism, and lipogranuloma formation. Emerging evidence suggests that Lipiodol hysterosalpingography may also impact maternal and neonatal thyroid function. Women may develop hypo- or hyperthyroidism. Thyroid dysfunction is clinically significant as even subclinical hypothyroidism reduces fertility, increases the risk of pregnancy complications including miscarriage, pre-eclampsia and perinatal mortality, and adversely impacts foetal neurodevelopment. One study suggested a possible link with neonatal congenital hypothyroidism.

CONCLUSION

There is emerging evidence to suggest that Lipiodol hysterosalpingography can cause hypo- or hyperthyroidism, in addition to known adverse effects of pain, intravasation, oil embolism, and lipogranuloma formation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Given the significance of these risks, and contention surrounding whether Lipiodol truly increases pregnancy rates compared to aqueous mediums, careful consideration is required in the selection of contrast agent. In particular, Lipiodol hysterosalpingography may not be suitable for women with pre-existing thyroid dysfunction.

Comparison of fertility outcomes between oil‑based and water‑based contrast media during hysterosalpingography: A meta‑analysis

Water-based and oil-based contrast media are both widely used in clinical practice for patients receiving hysterosalpingography (HSG). However, minor controversy exists about whether the oil-based contrast medium has a superior fertility-enhancing effect during HSG. The present meta-analysis intended to comprehensively compare the fertility outcomes of patients receiving either an oil-based or a water-based contrast medium during HSG. Web of Science, PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and China Science and Technology Journal Database were examined for literature comparing the fertility enhancement between oil-based and water-based contrast media during HSG up to November 10, 2022 and there was no cut off for studies published earlier than any given year. Data for clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy were extracted and analyzed. A total of 11 studies with 2,462 patients receiving oil-based contrast medium and 2,830 patients receiving water-based contrast medium during HSG were included. Relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were presented for outcome assessment, and the random effects model was utilized for all analyses. Publication bias was analyzed using Egger's and Begg's tests. The results indicated that the rate of clinical pregnancy was increased using oil-based contrast medium compared with water-based contrast medium [relative risk (RR) (95% CI), 1.29 (1.07, 1.54); P=0.006]. In addition, the rate of ongoing pregnancy [RR (95% CI), 1.39 (1.22, 1.59); P#x003C;0.001] and live birth [RR (95% CI), 1.41 (1.07, 1.87); P=0.016] were also increased using oil-based contrast medium compared with water-based contrast medium. However, miscarriage [RR (95% CI), 1.06 (0.61, 1.86); P=0.833] and ectopic pregnancy [RR (95% CI), 0.66 (0.18, 2.36); P=0.518] were not affected by using oil-based or water-based contrast medium. Begg's test and Egger's test suggested that no publication bias of clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy existed (all P>0.05), which indicated the stability of the present meta-analysis. In conclusion, the oil-based contrast medium enhances fertility outcomes compared with the water-based contrast medium in patients receiving HSG.

A meta-analysis of fertility and adverse outcomes in oil- and water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography

Infertility is the inability to conceive after one year of regular unprotected intercourse. There is a debate about the therapeutic effect of hysterosalpingography (HSG) and whether the selection of contrast materials makes a difference in the chance of subsequent conception. In this study, we aimed to compare the fertility-enhancing outcomes and adverse effects of oil and water-based contrasts in patients who underwent HSG. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched the Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus until September 2022. We included all primary randomized controlled trials evaluating the fertility-enhancing benefits of HSG in oil-based versus water-based contrast media in women of childbearing age with infertility. Eleven studies with 4,739 patients were selected. The pregnancy rate in the oil group was significantly higher than that in the water group [odds ratio (OR)=1.51 (1.23, 1.86), p<0.0001]. Our meta-analysis favored the oil group in abdominal pain and vaginal bleeding with the odd ratios of 0.73 (0.58, 0.91), (p=0.006) and 0.91 (0.46, 1.81), (p=0.79), respectively. Water-based contrast was associated with less intravasation [OR=2.09 (1.09-4.02), p=0.03]. There were no differences between the contrasts for miscarriage [OR=1.02 (0.71, 1.46), p=0.92], and ectopic pregnancy [OR=0.84 (0.27, 2.63), p=0.77]. HSG with oil-based contrast was related to a higher pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and intravasation rate. While HSG using a water-based contrast medium was associated with increased abdominal discomfort, vaginal bleeding, and the visual-analogue scale pain score.

The SELFI Study: Iodine Excess and Thyroid Dysfunction in Women Undergoing Oil-Soluble Contrast Hysterosalpingography

CONTEXT

Hysterosalpingography (HSG) with oil-soluble contrast medium (OSCM) improves pregnancy rates. However, OSCM has high iodine content and long half-life, leading to potential iodine excess.

OBJECTIVE

This work aimed to determine the pattern of iodine excess after OSCM HSG and the effect on thyroid function.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted of 196 consecutive consenting eligible women without overt hypothyroidism or hyperthyroidism. All completed the study with compliance greater than 95%. Participants underwent OSCM HSG (Auckland, 2019-2021) with serial monitoring of thyrotropin (TSH), free thyroxine (FT4), and urine iodine concentration (UIC) for 24 weeks. The main outcome measure was the development of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH), defined as a nonpregnant TSH greater than 4 mIU/L with normal FT4 (11-22 pmol/L) in those with normal baseline thyroid function.

RESULTS

Iodine excess (UIC ≥ 300 μg/L) was almost universal (98%) with UIC peaking usually by 4 weeks. There was marked iodine excess, with 90% and 17% of participants having UIC greater than or equal to 1000 μg/L and greater than 10 000 μg/L, respectively. Iodine excess was prolonged with 67% having a UIC greater than or equal to 1000 μg/L for at least 3 months. SCH developed in 38%; the majority (96%) were mild (TSH 4-10 mIU/L) and most developed SCH by week 4 (75%). Three participants met the current treatment guidelines (TSH > 10 mIU/L). Thyroxine treatment of mild SCH tended to improve pregnancy success (P = .063). Hyperthyroidism (TSH < 0.3 mIU/L) occurred in 9 participants (5%).

CONCLUSION

OSCM HSG resulted in marked and prolonged iodine excess. SCH occurred frequently with late-onset hyperthyroidism occasionally. Regular thyroid function tests are required for 6 months following this procedure.

Oil-based versus water-based contrast media for hysterosalpingography in infertile women of advanced age, with ovulation disorders or a high risk for tubal pathology: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (H2Oil2 study)

Background

In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG) increases ongoing pregnancy and subsequent live birth rates when compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast. It is currently unclear whether an HSG with oil-based contrast also results in more ongoing pregnancies and live births in women of advanced age, women with ovulation disorders, and women with potential tubal pathology when compared to an HSG with water-based contrast.

Methods

We plan an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying three groups of infertile women who have an indication for tubal patency testing according to their treating physician and additionally; (1) are 39 years of age or older, (2) have an ovulation disorder or (3) have a high risk for tubal pathology based on their medical history. Women with an allergy for iodinated contrast medium are excluded, as are women with diabetes, hyperprolactinemia or untreated hyper- or hypothyroidism, and women with a partner with severe male infertility. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated to the intervention, tubal flushing with the use of oil-based contrast during HSG or the control group, tubal flushing with the use of water-based contrast during HSG in a 1:1 ratio by the web-based system Castor. The primary endpoint will be ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth with conception within six months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are other pregnancy outcomes, used fertility treatments, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. Based on the expected ongoing pregnancy rate of 17% in the control group and 27% in the intervention group, the sample size will be 930 women (465 per group). Study inclusion is expected to be complete in four years.

Discussion

This multicentre RCT will establish whether, for women of advanced age, women with ovulatory disease, and women who have a high risk for tubal pathology, there is a fertility enhancing effect of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG and whether the use of this contrast medium is cost-effective.

Trial Registration The study was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on August 1st 2019 as ‘H2Oil2’ (reference number NL7925, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7925).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12905-022-01707-z.

Therapeutic effects of hysterosalpingography contrast media in infertile women: what do we know about the H2O in the H2Oil trial and why does it matter?

Recent interest in the use of oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) for hysterosalpingography (HSG) and other tubal flushing procedures is largely the result of publication of the large, multicentre, randomized controlled H2Oil trial in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017, addressing the long-held suspicion that pregnancy rates following HSG with OSCM are higher than if a water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) is used. However, the findings of this trial have been compromised by the WSCM selected for comparison with OSCM. The chosen WSCM belongs to a superceded class of ionic media, with an iodine concentration, osmolality and viscosity all lying at the extreme end of the range for water-soluble radiographic contrast. The requirement for safe, cheap, versatile WSCM for intravascular use during computerized tomography, angiography and interventional procedures has resulted in considerable refinement of WSCM, with current widespread use of non-ionic, low osmolality or iso-osmolar WSCM in radiology, including for HSG. However, the use of the earlier ionic, high osmolality agents such as that selected for the H2Oil trial persists for HSG in some centres, despite potential adverse effects on the endometrium and fallopian tubal epithelium compared with more modern, less toxic WSCM. Knowledge of the variety of physical and chemical characteristics of the available WSCM is essential for interpretation of the current literature and establishing the most effective and safe water-soluble agent to use for HSG. Design of future clinical trials to establish the potential superiority of OSCM over WSCM for fertility enhancement must include the use of the readily available, inexpensive modern WSCM. While the fertility rates following OSCM HSG have been shown to be high in women with idiopathic infertility, more robust trials are required before the widespread use of OSCM for HSG or other modalities such as ultrasound and laparoscopy should be adopted.

Safety of oil-based contrast medium for hysterosalpingography: a systematic review

Recent meta-analyses have shown that a hysterosalpingography (HSG) with oil-based contrast increases pregnancy rates in subfertile women. However, the frequency of complications during or after an HSG with oil-based contrast in subfertile women and/or their offspring is still unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis, without restrictions on language, publication date or study design, was performed to fill this knowledge gap. The results show that the most frequently reported complication was intravasation of contrast, which occurred in 2.7% with the use of oil-based contrast (31 cohort studies and randomized controlled trials [RCT], 95% CI 1.7-3.8, absolute event rate 664/19,339), compared with 2.0% with the use of water-based contrast (8 cohort studies and RCT, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, absolute event rate 18/1006). In the cohort studies and RCT there were 18 women with an oil embolism (18/19,339 HSG), all without serious lasting consequences. Four cases with serious consequences of an oil embolism were described (retinal oil embolism [n = 1] and cerebral complaints [n = 3]); these reports did not describe the use of adequate fluoroscopy guidance during HSG. In conclusion, the most frequently reported complication after an HSG with oil-based contrast is intravasation occurring in 2.7%. In total four cases with serious consequences of oil embolisms in subfertile women were published.

Effects of oil-soluble versus water-soluble contrast media at hysterosalpingography on pregnancy outcomes in women with a low risk of tubal disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, due to various factors, the rate of infertility in China has increased and now affects over 10% of women of reproductive age. Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is a common diagnostic procedure during fertility examinations. However, there is no consensus on the choice of contrast agents and their effects. As the largest multicentre, randomised controlled trial (H2Oil trial from the Netherlands) has shown that oil-soluble contrast at HSG can enhance fertility compared with water-soluble contrast, we propose this study to examine whether the use of oil-soluble contrast media results in increased rates of pregnancy in Chinese women undergoing HSG.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a single-centre, randomised, controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial. Patients with low risk of tubal disease will be randomised to undergo HSG using iodinated oil injection (OSCM group, oil-soluble contrast media) or ioversol injection (WSCM group, water-soluble contrast media). To evaluate the potential superiority of the OSCM group, with 1:1 allocation ratio, 90% statistical power and a two-sided significance level of 5%, we have calculated a sample of 520 women per group to be enrolled, for a total of 1040 including 10% loss to follow-up or protocol variation. The primary outcome is the rate of ongoing pregnancy during 6 months after randomisation. The secondary outcomes will consist of thyroid function of patients and newborns, pain scores during HSG, rate of live birth, clinical pregnancies, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancy, time to ongoing pregnancy, time to live birth, cost calculations of the OSCM group/WSCM group, and assisted reproductive technology treatments between the two groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol received authorisation from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital on 18 January 2020 (approval no GKLW2020-02). The findings will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000031612.

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

Establishing the subgroup analysis of the fallopian tubes (tubes) is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and visualising patency on radiographs, ultrasonography or laparoscopy. Many women were noted to conceive in the first three to six months after tubal flushing, raising the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates. An important adverse event during tubal flushing is intravasation (backflow of contrast medium into the blood or lymphatic vessels),which could lead to embolism although it is asymptomatic in most cases.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) and water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) on subsequent fertility outcomes in women with subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, reference lists of identified articles and trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with OSCM, WSCM with each other or with no treatment, in women with subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials involving 3864 women were included in this systematic review. Overall, the quality of evidence varied from very low to moderate: the main limitations were risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision. OSCM versus no treatment Four studies (506 women) were included in this comparison. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 6.85, 3 RCTs, 204 women, I² = 0, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 11%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 16% and 46%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase in the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.08 to 6.02, 4 RCTs, 506 women, I² = 18%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 17% and 37%. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. WSCM versus no treatment Only one study (334 women) was included in this comparison. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increase live birth compared to no treatment (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 21%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 15% and 33%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increases clinical pregnancy compared to no treatment (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 27%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 29% and 40%. One case with pelvic infection was reported in the WSCM group and no case with infection in the no treatment group in a one study (334 women). Meta-analysis was not performed due to the rare events. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. OSCM versus WSCM Six studies (2598 women) were included in this comparison. Three studies reported live birth, including two with higher live birth in the OSCM group (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.11, 1119 women; OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.03, 398 women); and one with insufficient evidence of a difference between groups (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40, 533 women). Given the substantial heterogeneity observed (I² = 86%), meta-analysis was not performed. Tubal flushing with OSCM probably increased in the odds of intravasation (asymptomatic) compared to tubal flushing with WSCM (OR 5.00, 95% CI 2.25 to 11.12, 4 RCTs, 1912 women, I² = 0, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of intravasation following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 1%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 2% and 9%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.85, 6 RCTs, 2598 women, I² = 41%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 26%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 28% and 39%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with OSCM decreases the odds of infection (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.22, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I² = 0, very low-quality evidence) or haemorrhage (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.06, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I² = 0, very low-quality evidence). Three neonates with congenital abnormalities were reported in the OSCM group while no congenital abnormality was reported in the WSCM group in one study (1119 women). No meta-analysis was performed due to the rare events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that compared to no treatment, tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the chance of live birth and clinical pregnancy, while it is uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM improves those outcomes. Compared to tubal flushing with WSCM, OSCM may improve clinical pregnancy while meta-analysis was impossible for live birth due to heterogeneity. Evidence also suggests that OSCM is associated with an increased risk of asymptomatic intravasation. Overall, adverse events, especially long-term adverse events, are poorly reported across studies.

Lipiodol flush under ultrasound guidance in Australia

BACKGROUND

Lipiodol tubal flushing is offered to select subfertile women primarily to confirm tubal patency and to increase pregnancy rates.

AIMS

To investigate the safety of hystero-salpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy) using Lipiodol flush (through frequency of adverse events and mean recalled pain score) and secondarily to quantify pregnancy rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective observational Phase 1 study of subfertile women in three centres across Australia between June 2017 and June 2019. Cases were identified from medical records, and women telephoned to assess adverse outcomes, procedure tolerability and confirm pregnancy outcomes within six months from procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 325 cases were identified; 14 were excluded due to incomplete or abandoned procedure, 32 were lost to follow-up, leaving 279 for analysis. Fourteen women (5% overall) experienced mild vasovagal reactions, with one case of infection and no reports of anaphylaxis or allergy. There were 141 conceptions reported (51%) within six months after Lipiodol flush, and an ongoing pregnancy in 43% (119) of women. For women with ongoing pregnancies, 55% (78/119) conceived spontaneously, and 45% (63/119) via artificial reproductive technology. Mean recalled pain score was 5.7 (SD 3.2; range 0-10) at a single site.

CONCLUSIONS

This Phase 1 study has indicated that Lipiodol flush using HyCoSy may be a safe and efficacious alternative to hysterosalpingography in the workup for infertility. The low adverse effect profile observed in this study coupled with a substantial ongoing pregnancy rate indicates that further investigation of Lipiodol under HyCoSy is warranted.

Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study

STUDY QUESTION

Does pain or volume of used contrast medium impact the effectiveness of oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In women who report moderate to severe pain during HSG, the use of oil-based contrast resulted in more ongoing pregnancies compared to the use of water-based contrast, whereas in women who reported mild or no pain, no difference in ongoing pregnancies was found.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, the use of oil-based contrast results in more ongoing pregnancies within 6 months as compared to the use of water-based contrast. However, the underlying mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect remains unclear.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a post-hoc analysis of the H2Oil study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the therapeutic effect of oil- and water-based contrast at HSG. Here, we evaluated the impact of pain experienced at HSG and volume of used contrast media during HSG on ongoing pregnancy.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

In a subset of 400 participating women, pain during HSG by means of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range: 0.0–10.0 cm) was reported, while in 512 women, we registered the volume of used contrast (in millilitres). We used logistic regression analyses to assess whether pain and volume of used contrast media modified the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy rates. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In 400 women in whom pain scores were reported, the overall median pain score was 5.0 (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.0–6.8) (oil group (n = 199) 4.8 (IQR 3.0–6.4); water group (n = 201) 5.0 (IQR 3.0–6.7); P-value 0.28). There was a significant interaction between pain (VAS ≤5 versus VAS ≥6) and the primary outcome ongoing pregnancy (P-value 0.047). In women experiencing pain (VAS ≥6), HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in better 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates compared to HSG with water-based contrast (49.4% versus 29.6%; RR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1–2.5), while in women with a pain score ≤5, 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the use of oil- (28.8%) versus water-based contrast (29.2%) (RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66–1.5). In the 512 women in whom we recorded contrast, median volume was 9.0 ml (IQR 5.7–15.0) in the oil group versus 8.0 ml (IQR 5.9–13.0) in the water group, respectively (P-value 0.72). Volume of used contrast was not found to modify the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy (P-value for interaction 0.23).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This was a post-hoc analysis that should be considered as hypothesis generating. The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women, younger than 39 years of age and with a low risk for tubal pathology. Therefore, our results should not be generalised to infertile women who do not share these features.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The underlying mechanism of the fertility-enhancing effect induced by HSG with the use of oil-based contrast remains unclear. However, these findings suggest a possible mechanistic pathway, that is increasing intrauterine pressure occurring prior to dislodging pregnancy hindering debris or mucus plugs from the proximal part of otherwise normal fallopian tubes. This information might help in the search of the underlying fertility-enhancing mechanism found by using oil-based contrast during HSG.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet. H.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers’ fees from Ferring and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research grants from Merck KGaA and Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflict of interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The H2Oil study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR 3270).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

1 February 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

3 February 2012.

Tubal flushing with oil-based or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility: long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of oil-based versus water-based contrast on pregnancy and live birth rates ≤5 years after hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women.

DESIGN

A 5-year follow-up study of a multicenter randomized trial.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PATIENT(S)

Infertile women with an ovulatory cycle, 18-39 years of age, and having a low risk of tubal pathology.

INTERVENTION(S)

Use of oil-based versus water-based contrast during HSG.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ongoing pregnancy, live births, time to ongoing pregnancy, second ongoing pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

A total of 1,119 women were randomly assigned to HSG with oil-based contrast (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562). After 5 years, 444 of 555 women in the oil group (80.0%) and 419 of 559 women in the water group (75.0%) had an ongoing pregnancy (relative risk [RR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.14), and 415 of 555 women in the oil group (74.8%) and 376 of 559 women in the water group (67.3%) had live births (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20). In the oil group, 228 pregnancies (41.1%) were conceived naturally versus 194 (34.7%) pregnancies in the water group (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.02-1.38). The time to ongoing pregnancy was significantly shorter in the oil group versus the water group (10.0 vs. 13.7 months; hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI 1.09-1.43). No difference was found in the occurrence of a second ongoing pregnancy.

CONCLUSION(S)

During a 5-year time frame, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates are higher after tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG compared with water-based contrast. More pregnancies are naturally conceived and time to ongoing pregnancy is shorter after HSG with oil-based contrast.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) 3270 and NTR6577(www.trialregister.nl).

Lipiodol visibility under ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Lipiodol is an oil-based solution commonly used in hysterosalpingogram (HSG), but not hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy). In women with unexplained infertility, evidence suggests that tubal flushing with Lipiodol results in improved fertility post-procedure. We propose that Lipiodol can be visualised under ultrasound similar to commonly used saline, and hence utilised for HyCoSy, allowing the benefit of an oil-based tubal flushing to occur with HyCoSy.

AIMS

To examine whether Lipiodol is visible sonographically, assess optimal agitated Lipiodol mix and ultrasound settings for visibility, and compare visibility to agitated saline, routinely used for HyCoSy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two separate sonographers with identical ultrasound machines and model pelvises recorded images with varying degrees of agitated Lipiodol and ultrasound settings, in addition to capturing images with no fluid and agitated saline. Each test was performed in quadruplicate and in random order. Images were read by 47 blinded reporters and visibility reported on a scale of one (not visible) to five (clearly visible).

RESULTS

The mean visibility score for images captured where the Lipiodol sample was agitated five times prior to injection to allow the formation of air microbubbles, regardless of ultrasound setting, were higher than or not different from that for agitated saline (all P > 0.7 when not different, <0.001 when higher).

CONCLUSIONS

Sonographic visualisation of agitated Lipiodol is similar or better than that of agitated saline. Lipiodol may therefore present a possibility for use with HyCoSy, with the added benefit of oil-based tubal flushing, avoiding the radiation exposure of HSG and concurrently providing pelvic soft-tissue evaluation.

Complications after hysterosalpingography with oil- or water-based contrast: results of a nationwide survey

STUDY QUESTION

What is the incidence of complications after hysterosalpingography (HSG) using oil-based contrast versus water-based contrast?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Among 5165 women undergoing HSG, the most frequently reported complication after HSG with oil- and water-based contrast was intravasation of contrast medium (4.8% versus 1.3%, respectively), which was without further consequences, and pulmonary embolization or death did not occur.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

An HSG with oil-based contrast increases pregnancy rates in women with unexplained infertility. However, there have been some concerns regarding complications, including the risks of intravasation of the contrast medium, oil embolism and infection. Here, we present the incidence of complications after HSG with different types of contrast media used in the Netherlands in the year 2017.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

In January 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 73 clinics in the Netherlands that perform HSG. The survey consisted of 12 questions addressing the number of HSGs performed in 2017, the amount and type of contrast medium used, the occurrence of post-procedural complications and what their clinical consequences were. Non-responding clinics were sent multiple reminders.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

We calculated the incidence of the complications and reported on their clinical consequences. Furthermore, we examined the average amount of contrast used as well as the administration of prophylactic antibiotics.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The response rate was 96% (67/70) (during the study, one site closed and was not included while two clinics no longer performed HSGs). In the 67 clinics, 3289 HSGs with oil-based contrast and 1876 HSGs with water-based contrast were performed in 2017. The median amount of contrast used was 8.0 ml (interquartile range (IQR) 7.0-10.0) for oil-based contrast and 10.0 ml for water-based contrast (IQR 10.0-10.0). Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered in 61% (41/67) of the clinics. Intravasation occurred in 4.8% of the HSGs performed with oil-based contrast and in 1.3% of the HSGs with water-based contrast (relative risk (RR), 3.6; CI, 2.4-5.4). Pulmonary embolism or death was not reported. Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) occurred in 0.3% of the HSGs performed with oil-based contrast versus 0.4% with water-based contrast. PID occurred in 0.3% of the HSGs in clinics using antibiotic prophylaxis and 0.2% in clinics not using antibiotic prophylaxis. Allergic reactions were reported in one HSG performed with oil-based contrast (0.03%) compared with two HSGs performed with water-based contrast (0.1%). Anaphylactic reactions did not occur. The overall complication rate was 5.1% in the clinics that used oil-based contrast versus 1.8% in the clinics that used water-based contrast (RR, 2.8; CI, 1.9-4.0; P-value, <0.0001).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

Half of the clinics did not routinely register complications, and the incidence of the complications in their clinic was based on the recall of the clinician. Estimated complication rates in the clinics with and without systematic registration did not significantly differ. The survey asked about the frequency of intravasation but no classification system is being used in daily practice, which may create differences in reporting. There was no standard screening of post-HSG thyroid function for the mother and the foetus.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

In this nationwide cohort study, the complication rates after HSG were low. Intravasation occurred more frequently with the use of oil-based contrast compared with water-based contrast but did not lead to any problems or symptoms in any of the women. We therefore conclude that safety concerns should not be a reason to deny the use of oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility. The data also support that fluoroscopy appears to be an essential safety measure during HSG.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This work was partly funded by Guerbet, France. I.R. reports receiving travel fee for presenting at the Congress of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2019 from Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker's fee as well as research grants from Guerbet. K.D. reports receiving travel and speaker's fee from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research grants from Merck KGaA and Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N19.056.

Effectiveness on fertility outcome of tubal flushing with different contrast media: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare, in women with infertility, the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium, water-based contrast medium or their combination, and no tubal flushing, and to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing on fertility outcome over time.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries, up to 25 September 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the following interventions with each other or with no intervention in women with infertility: tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium, tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium or additional tubal flushing with oil-based medium following diagnostic tubal flushing with water-based medium. The outcomes included clinical pregnancy, live birth, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 283 studies identified through the search, 14 RCTs reporting on 3852 women with infertility were included. Network meta-analysis showed that tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium was associated with higher odds of clinical pregnancy within 6 months after randomization and more subsequent live births compared with tubal flushing using water-based medium (odds ratio (OR), 1.67 (95% CI, 1.38-2.03), moderate certainty of evidence; and OR, 2.18 (95% CI, 1.30-3.65), low certainty of evidence, respectively) and compared with no intervention (OR, 2.28 (95% CI, 1.50-3.47), moderate certainty of evidence; and OR, 2.85 (95% CI, 1.41-5.74), low certainty of evidence, respectively). These results agreed with those of the pairwise meta-analysis. For clinical pregnancy within 6 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference between tubal flushing with water-based contrast medium and no intervention (OR, 1.36 (95% CI, 0.91-2.04), low certainty of evidence). For fertility outcomes after 6 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in any comparison (low to very low certainty of evidence). Compared with tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium, the use of oil-based contrast medium was associated with higher odds of asymptomatic intravasation (OR, 5.06 (95% CI, 2.29-11.18), moderate certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

In women with infertility undergoing fertility workup, tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium probably increases clinical pregnancy rates within 6 months after randomization and may increase subsequent live-birth rates, compared with tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium and compared with no intervention. Evidence on fertility outcomes beyond 6 months is inadequate to draw firm conclusions. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Oil-based versus water-based contrast for hysterosalpingography in infertile women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of the using oil-soluble contrast material (OSCM) vs. water-soluble contrast material (WSCM) for hysterosalpingography on pregnancy rates in infertile women.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Infertile women.

INTERVENTION(S)

We included randomized controlled trials comparing pregnancy outcomes in women with infertility undergoing hysterosalpingography using OSCM and WSCM. Paired reviewers independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias of included studies, and extracted data. A random-effects model was used to report all outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, Evaluation（GRADE） system was used to quantify absolute effects and quality of evidence.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy per randomized women.

RESULT(S)

Six trials with a total of 2,562 patients were selected. Our meta-analysis showed OSCM was associated with significantly higher rates of ongoing pregnancy compared with WSCM (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.93; I² = 44%, moderate-quality evidence). Three trials reported live birth, but they were not pooled owing to extreme statistical heterogeneity (I² = 86%). There was no difference in incidence of miscarriage (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.56-1.24) or ectopic pregnancy (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.18-2.36) between OSCM and WSCM groups. Three trials were rated as low risk of bias, whereas three were considered unclear.

CONCLUSION(S)

Women who previously underwent hysterosalpingography using oil contrast had higher rates of ongoing pregnancy compared with women who underwent this procedure using water contrast. There is not enough evidence to either support or oppose the difference between groups concerning miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy.

Oil-Based or Water-Based Contrast for Hysterosalpingography in Infertile Women

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy rates among infertile women have been reported to increase after hysterosalpingography, but it is unclear whether the type of contrast medium used (oil-based or water-soluble contrast) influences this potential therapeutic effect.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter, randomized trial in 27 hospitals in the Netherlands in which infertile women who were undergoing hysterosalpingography were randomly assigned to undergo this procedure with the use of oil-based or water-based contrast. Subsequently, couples received expectant management or the women underwent intrauterine insemination. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy within 6 months after randomization. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

A total of 1119 women were randomly assigned to hysterosalpingography with oil contrast (557 women) or water contrast (562 women). A total of 220 of 554 women in the oil group (39.7%) and 161 of 554 women in the water group (29.1%) had an ongoing pregnancy (rate ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.61; P<0.001), and 214 of 552 women in the oil group (38.8%) and 155 of 552 women in the water group (28.1%) had live births (rate ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.64; P<0.001). Rates of adverse events were low and similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of ongoing pregnancy and live births were higher among women who underwent hysterosalpingography with oil contrast than among women who underwent this procedure with water contrast. (Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR3270 .).

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

Establishing the patency of the fallopian tubes is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and taking radiographs. However, it has been noted that many women conceive in the first three to six months after the tubal flushing, which has raised the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of flushing fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on live birth and pregnancy rates in women with subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, trial registers and reference lists of identified articles. The most recent search was conducted in June 2014.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media, or with no treatment, in women with subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials involving 2914 women were included, of whom 2494 were included in the analysis. Oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) versus no interventionThe OSCM group had a higher rate of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.91, 1 RCT, 158 women, low quality evidence) and ongoing pregnancy (OR 3.59, 95% CI 2.06 to 6.26, 3 RCTs, 382 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence) than women who had no intervention. Our findings suggest that among subfertile women with a 17% chance of an ongoing pregnancy if they have no intervention, the rate will increase to between 29% and 55% if they have tubal flushing with OSCM. Water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) versus no interventionThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, very low quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, very low quality evidence). OSCM versus WSCMTwo RCTs reported live birth: one found a higher live birth rate in the oil-soluble group and the other found no evidence of a difference between the groups. These studies were not pooled due to very high heterogeneity (I(2) = 93%). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of ongoing pregnancy, however there was high heterogeneity (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.47, 5 RCTs, 1454 women, I(2) = 76%, random-effects model, very low quality evidence). OSCM plus WSCM versus WSCM aloneThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, 1 RCT, 393 women, very low quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72, 4 RCTs, 633 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between any of the interventions in rates of adverse events, but such events were poorly reported in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media may increase the chance of pregnancy and live birth compared to no intervention. Findings for other comparisons were inconclusive due to inconsistency and lack of statistical power. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to reach firm conclusions. Further robust randomised controlled trials are needed.

Diagnostic image quality of hysterosalpingography: ionic versus non ionic water soluble iodinated contrast media

Objective

To compare the diagnostic image quality between three different water soluble iodinated contrast media in hysterosalpingography (HSG).

Material and method

In a prospective randomised study of 204 patients, the diagnostic quality of images obtained after hysterosalpingography were evaluated using Iopramide (106 patients) and Ioxaglate (98 patients). 114 patients who had undergone HSG examination using Iodamide were analysed retrospectively. Image quality was assessed by three radiologists independently based on an objective set of criteria. The obtained results were statistically analysed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

Visualisation of fimbrial rugae was significantly better with Iopramide and Ioxaglate than Iodamide. All contrast media provided acceptable diagnostic image quality with regard to uterine, fallopian tubes outline and peritoneal spill. Uterine opacification was noted to be too dense in all three contrast media and not optimal for the assessment of intrauterine pathology. Higher incidence of contrast intravasation was noted in the Iodamide group. Similarly, the numbers of patients diagnosed with bilateral blocked fallopian tubes were also higher in the Iodamide group.

Conclusion

HSG using low osmolar contrast media (Iopramide and Ioxaglate) demonstrated diagnostic image qualities similar to HSG using conventional high osmolar contrast media (Iodamide). However, all three contrast media were found to be too dense for the detection of intrauterine pathology. Better visualisation of the fimbrial outline using Ioxaglate and Iopramide were attributed to their low contrast viscosity. The increased incidence of contrast media intravasation and bilateral tubal blockage using Iodamide are probably related to the high viscosity.

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

A possible therapeutic effect of diagnostic tubal patency testing has been debated in the literature for half a century. Further debate surrounds whether oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media might have the bigger fertility-enhancing effect.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of flushing a woman's fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on subsequent fertility outcomes in couples with infertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched 31 January 2007), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstract and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media or tubal flushing with water-soluble media or with no treatment in women with subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected adverse effects information from the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials involving 2079 participants were included. Tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus no intervention was associated with a significant increase in the odds of live birth (Peto OR 2.98, 95% CI 1.40 to 6.37) and of pregnancy (Peto OR 3.30, 95% CI 2.00 to 5.43). For the comparison of tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus tubal flushing with water-soluble media, the increase in the odds of live birth for tubal flushing with oil-soluble versus water-soluble media (Peto OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.11) was based on two trials where statistical heterogeneity was present and the higher quality trial showed no significant difference; there was no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54). The addition of oil-soluble media to flushing with water-soluble media showed no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.79) or live birth (Peto OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77). There were no serious adverse event reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media in increasing the odds of pregnancy and live birth versus no intervention. Future robust randomised trials, comparing oil-soluble versus water-soluble media, water-soluble media versus no intervention and tubal flushing versus established treatments for infertility would be a useful further guide to clinical practice.

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

A possible therapeutic effect of diagnostic tubal patency testing has been debated in the literature for half a century. Further debate surrounds whether oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media might have the bigger fertility-enhancing effect. Historically a variety of agents have been used to 'flush' the fallopian tubes, although tubal flushing does not currently form part of routine practice in the treatment of fertility delay.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of flushing a woman's fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on subsequent fertility outcomes in couples with infertility.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group's specialised register of trials (searched 2 March 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to Mar 2004), EMBASE (1980 to Mar 2004), Biological Abstract (1980 to Mar 2004) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials where tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media or tubal flushing with water-soluble media was compared with one another or with no treatment were considered for inclusion in the review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eleven randomised controlled trials were identified and included in this review. All trials were assessed for quality criteria. The studied primary outcome was live birth (and ongoing pregnancy), with secondary outcomes pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, treatment complications including pain, intravasation of contrast medium, infection and haemorrhage, and image quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus no intervention (three trials including 381 participants) was associated with a significant increase in the odds of live birth (Peto OR 2.98, 95%CI 1.40 to 6.37) and of pregnancy (Peto OR 3.30, 95%CI 2.00 to 5.43). There were no data from RCTs to assess tubal flushing with water-soluble media versus no intervention. For the comparison of tubal flushing with oil-soluble media versus tubal flushing with water-soluble media (six trials including 1,483 participants), the increase in the odds of live birth for tubal flushing with oil-soluble versus water-soluble media (Peto OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.05 to 2.11) was based on two trials where statistical heterogeneity was present and the higher quality trial showed no significant difference; there was no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.24, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.57). The addition of oil-soluble media to flushing with water-soluble media (water-soluble plus oil-soluble media versus water-soluble media alone; three trials including 555 participants) showed no evidence of a significant difference in the odds of pregnancy (Peto OR 1.18, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.70) or live birth (Peto OR 1.06, 95%CI 0.64 to 1.77). Adverse event data were only available for the comparison OSCM versus WSCM: OSCM carried a significantly higher chance of intravasation (Peto OR 5.41, 95%CI 2.57 to 11.37) but a significantly lower chance of immediate pain (Peto OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.84), prolonged pain (Peto OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.45) and post-procedure bleeding (Peto OR 0.22, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.31), and no serious adverse events were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media in increasing the odds of pregnancy and live birth versus no intervention. The limited evidence of an increase in the odds of live birth from tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media versus water-soluble contrast media must be interpreted cautiously. Further robust randomised trials, comparing oil-soluble versus water-soluble media and comparing water-soluble media versus no intervention, would be a useful further guide to clinical practice. Further research is merited to ascertain the mechanism of the fertility enhancing effect of oil-soluble media, as to whether this is a 'tubal flushing' phenomenon, an effect on the intraperitoneal environment, or an implantation enhancing effect on the endometrium.

A Review of the Use of Lipiodol Flushing for Unexplained Infertility

There has been speculation for decades regarding the role of flushing women's fallopian tubes in improving the chance of pregnancy. More recent evidence has highlighted a possible specific role for lipiodol (ethiodized oil), an oil-soluble contrast medium, in the enhancement of fertility by these means. This systematic review was designed to assess the effectiveness of tubal flushing with various contrast media in improving the chance of pregnancy. The review was performed using Cochrane guidelines, including only data from randomized controlled trials. Results confirm the effectiveness of flushing with lipiodol in improving the chance of pregnancy and live birth. Although there was limited evidence to suggest a possible benefit of oil- over water-soluble contrast media, the answer to this question remains unclear. The specific groups who appear to benefit most from lipiodol flushing are couples with unexplained infertility, but particularly couples where the woman has endometriosis in the context of normal patent fallopian tubes. As a simple, low-cost, minimally invasive intervention that carries a low risk of complications and no increased risk of multiple pregnancy, lipiodol flushing may prove an appealing alternative to established fertility treatments for many couples.

Transcervical intrauterine topical local anesthetic at hysterosalpingography: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether transcervical intrauterine topical instillation of a local anesthetic agent reduces pain at hysterosalpingography.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

Department of reproductive medicine at a university teaching hospital.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred ten women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG).

INTERVENTION(S)

Subjects were randomized to receive either 2 mL of 2% plain lignocaine or 2 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride solution (placebo) topically into the uterine cavity before the HSG was performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The degree of lower abdominal pain experienced both during the injection of contrast media at HSG and 10 minutes after the procedure using a 20-cm visual analogue scale (VAS) and a four-point verbal descriptor scale (VDS).

RESULT(S)

There was no difference in pain scores between lignocaine and placebo during the HSG. However, at 10 minutes after the HSG, subjects receiving lignocaine experienced more pain than those on placebo.

CONCLUSION(S)

Transcervical intrauterine topical instillation of 2 mL of 2% plain lignocaine does not reduce pain during HSG and may lead to increased pain immediately after the procedure.