Does local endometrial injury in the nontransfer cycle improve the IVF-ET outcome in the subsequent cycle in patients with previous unsuccessful IVF? A randomized controlled pilot study

Hysteroscopic Endometrial Fundal Incision versus Hysteroscopy Only in Oocyte Recipients: A Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing The Reproductive Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Endometrial scratching (ES) remains controversial regarding its potential effectiveness in improving pregnancy rates. The objective of the present study was to assess the impact of endometrial fundal incision (EFI) during hysteroscopy on reproductive outcomes in a population of oocyte recipients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2020 and 2023 at the Third Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and "Assisting Nature Centre of Reproduction and Genetics". The study population consisted of women who underwent hysteroscopy randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either EFI (one to three months before embryotransfer with donor oocytes) or no intervention throughout office hysteroscopy. Clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

After the exclusion of patients with intraoperative diagnosed endometrial pathology, a total of 124 women underwent randomization. The pregnancy test was positive in 79% (n=49/62) of the women in the EFI compared to 59.7% (n=37/62) in the hysteroscopy-only group (P=0.019), while the live birth rates did not differ between the two groups (58.1%, n=36/62 vs. 51.6%, n=32/62, P=0.470).

CONCLUSION

EFI during hysteroscopy seems to improve pregnancy rates in oocyte recipients without intrauterine pathology, while live birth rates are not affected by the EFI. These results should be interpreted with caution before the implementation of EFI in the routine in vitro fertilization (IVF) practice (registration number: NCT04580056).

Endometrial biopsy performed before the first in vitro fertilization does not impact the early pregnancy rate

Endometrial biopsy (EB) has been showed to increase the rate of clinical pregnancy in patients who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) failures. The purpose of this work was to assess the impact of an EB performed before the first in IVF on the early pregnancy rate. Be One study is a prospective, single-centre, randomized, open-label study. In this parallel study, patients were evenly split into two groups. In one group, patients underwent an EB between days 17 and 22 of the menstrual cycle that precedes the ovarian stimulation. In the other group (control), no EB was performed. The hCG-positive rate (early pregnancy rate) was evaluated on day 14 after the ovarian puncture. In total, 157 patients were randomized in the EB group and 154 patients were in the control group. The early pregnancy rate was 33.1% (52/157) in the EB group and 29.9% (46/154) in the control group (p = 0.54). Other parameters, including perforation, endometritis, or pain level were reassuring. An EB performed during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle preceding the stimulation of the first IVF did not increase early pregnancy rate.

Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In IVF/ICSI treatment, the process of embryo implantation is the success rate-limiting step. Endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve this process, but it is unclear if this procedure increases the chance of implantation and live birth (LB) and, if so, for whom, and how the scratch should be performed.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aims to answer the question of whether endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI influences the chance of a LB, and whether this effect is different in specific subgroups of women. After its incidental discovery in 2000, endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve embryo implantation. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, showing contradicting results. Conventional meta-analyses were limited by high within- and between-study heterogeneity, small study samples, and a high risk of bias for many of the trials. Also, the data integrity of several trials have been questioned. Thus, despite numerous RCTs and a multitude of conventional meta-analyses, no conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of endometrial scratching could be drawn. An IPD-MA approach is able to overcome many of these problems because it allows for increased uniformity of outcome definitions, can filter out studies with data integrity concerns, enables a more precise estimation of the true treatment effect thanks to adjustment for participant characteristics and not having to make the assumptions necessary in conventional meta-analyses, and because it allows for subgroup analysis.

SEARCH METHODS

A systematic literature search identified RCTs on endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share original data for this IPD-MA. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB) and integrity checks were performed. The primary outcome was LB, with a one-stage intention to treat (ITT) as the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included as treated (AT), and the subset of women that underwent an embryo transfer (AT+ET). Treatment-covariate interaction for specific participant characteristics was analyzed in AT+ET.

OUTCOMES

Out of 37 published and 15 unpublished RCTs (7690 participants), 15 RCTs (14 published, one unpublished) shared data. After data integrity checks, we included 13 RCTs (12 published, one unpublished) representing 4112 participants. RoB was evaluated as 'low' for 10/13 RCTs. The one-stage ITT analysis for scratch versus no scratch/sham showed an improvement of LB rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.64]). AT, AT+ET, and low-RoB-sensitivity analyses yielded similar results (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.96-1.54]; OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.99-1.57]; OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.03-1.55], respectively). Treatment-covariate interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction with age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, or infertility cause.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This is the first meta-analysis based on IPD of more than 4000 participants, and it demonstrates that endometrial scratching may improve LB rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Subgroup analysis for age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, and infertility cause could not identify subgroups in which endometrial scratching performed better or worse. The timing of endometrial scratching may play a role in its effectiveness. The use of endometrial scratching in clinical practice should be considered with caution, meaning that patients should be properly counseled on the level of evidence and the uncertainties.

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

RESEARCH QUESTION

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

DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023433538 (18 Jun 2023).

Is the length of time between endometrial scratching and embryo transfer important for pregnancy success? An observational study

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate the influence of time (early <90 days and late >90 days) and endometrial injury on pregnancy success.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study in which all infertile women who underwent at least one in vitro fertilization cycle at Clinica Gera between 2010 and 2015 were considered for inclusion. We included patients with a normal ovarian reserve and regular menses at intervals of up to 30 days. A total of 315 patient files were reviewed, and the study group was composed of patients who faced fertility issues and had male-caused infertility or idiopathic infertility. Also, women with male or unknown cause of infertility who have performed endometrial biopsy and have undergone embryo transfer up to 180 days after this procedure between 2010 and 2015 were included. The patients were divided into two groups according to the interval between biopsy and embryo transfer: group 1 (early-an interval of <90 days) and group 2 (late-an interval of >90 days and up to 180 days).

RESULTS

The results were superior for the group with an interval of less than 90 days relative to the group with an interval of more than 90 days (p<0.04). The pregnancy rates for group 1 and group 2 were 58.5% and 43.4%, respectively. The odds ratio for pregnancy success was 1.63 (95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 2.55).

CONCLUSION

The early transfer of embryos (<90 days) may produce better results with a high rate of pregnancy. Further studies are necessary to identify the mechanism involved in this phenomenon.

Subtle changes in perivascular endometrial mesenchymal stem cells after local endometrial injury in recurrent implantation failure

Improvements in reproductive techniques have resulted in the live birth rates from IVF procedures increasing from 5% to approximately 30% in recent decades but has plateaued since. Emerging preclinical and clinical data implicates endometrial receptivity deficiencies in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) as the predominant factor hindering successful implantation. Mechanisms on how local endometrial injury (LEI) improves implantation rates in patients with RIF are currently unknown. We hypothesized that LEI may influence perivascular endometrial mesenchymal stem/progenitor cells (eMSCs) which are thought to regenerate the stromal vascular component of the functional layer every month. Here, we assessed the effect of LEI on the proportion and function of eMSCs present in consecutive LEI biopsies. Consecutive paired mid-luteal phase endometrial biopsies obtained from patients with RIF were digested to single cells and the proportion of SUSD2-expressing cells determined. Growth kinetics and decidualization were compared between the consecutive LEI samples. A mid-luteal LEI altered the decidualization capacity of SUSD2⁺ eMSCs in women with RIF, but not their proportion or clonogenicity. With the potential of LEI to improve IVF outcomes in women with RIF, additional investigations are needed to understand the impact of the altered decidualization response in eMSCs.

The effect of endometrial scratching on reproductive outcomes in infertile women undergoing IVF treatment cycles

This study was a Randomised Controlled Trial aiming to evaluate the effect of Endometrial Scratching (ES) on fertility rate. Participants were primary infertile women undergoing IVF treatment. ES for the intervention group was done using endometrial aspiration in the luteal phase of the cycle before embryo transfer. In both groups, 2-3 8-celled embryos were transferred after endometrial preparation by Oestrogen and Progesterone. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of age, BMI and endometrial thickness (ET). No significant differences were found between intervention and control groups in chemical pregnancy rate (p = 0.410), clinical pregnancy (p = 0.822), the number of abortions (p = 0.282) and the implantation rate (p = 0.777). Local ES had no significant effects in improving the IVF success rate and reducing the embryo abortion rate.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Endometrial scratching (ES) is a local injury to the endometrium that was assumed to affect implantation in IVF and IUI cycles positively. However, various studies have shown conflicting results on this matter.What do the results of this study add? Local ES had no significant effects on improving the IVF success rate and reducing the embryo abortion rate in patients with the first IVF cycle.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Larger clinical trials can measure the usefulness of ES with higher powers. However, this study, along with other clinical trials, can help evaluate the ES effect in future meta-analyses.

Investigation of the endometrial receptivity status in experimental hypothyroid-induced female rats

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate hypothyroidism's effects on endometrial receptivity, creating an experimental hypothyroidism model in female rats.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To induce hypothyroidism in rats of Hipotiroid-ER and Treatment-ER groups, 0.05% 6-propyl-2-thiouracil was freshly added to their drinking water for 8 weeks and then the endometrial receptivity model was applied and sacrificed on the fifth day. In the Treatment-ER group, after sc-administration of 0.8 µg/100 g L-thyroxine for 10 days, the endometrial receptivity model was applied to the rats and sacrificed on the fifth day.

RESULTS

In the histopathological evaluation, epithelial degeneration, vacuolization, enlargement of the uterine glands, and morphological disorders were observed in the endometrial layer of the Hypothyroid-ER group. However, these pathologies were significantly alleviated in the Treatment-ER group. Integrin β3, integrin αvβ3, LIF, and HOXA10 immune reaction intensities were high in the Control-ER and Treatment-ER groups, while in the Hypothyroid-ER group, integrin β3, integrin αvβ3, LIF, and HOXA10 immunoreactivity intensities were low. Also, while MUC1 immunoreactivity was high in the Hypothyroid-ER group, it was low in the other groups. In biochemical analysis, a significant increase in the TSH and progesterone levels and a significant decrease in the FT4, E2, FSH, and LH levels in the Hypothyroid-ER group compared with the Control-ER group were observed. Also, all hormone levels were significantly ameliorated in the rats of the Treatment-ER group compared with the Hypothyroid-ER group.

CONCLUSION

The results obtained showed that hypothyroidism had a significant effect on endometrial receptivity-the histopathological and biochemical changes caused by hypothyroidism in the experimental rat model were ameliorated with L-thyroxine treatment.

Lipid metabolism and endometrial receptivity

BACKGROUND

Obesity has now been recognized as a high-risk factor for reproductive health. Although remarkable advancements have been made in ART, a considerable number of infertile obese women still suffer from serial implantation failure, despite the high quality of embryos transferred. Although obesity has long been known to exert various deleterious effects on female fertility, the underlying mechanisms, especially the roles of lipid metabolism in endometrial receptivity, remain largely elusive.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review summarizes current evidence on the impacts of several major lipids and lipid-derived mediators on the embryonic implantation process. Emerging methods for evaluating endometrial receptivity, for example transcriptomic and lipidomic analysis, are also discussed.

SEARCH METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched using the following keywords: (lipid or fatty acid or prostaglandin or phospholipid or sphingolipid or endocannabinoid or lysophosphatidic acid or cholesterol or progesterone or estrogen or transcriptomic or lipidomic or obesity or dyslipidemia or polycystic ovary syndrome) AND (endometrial receptivity or uterine receptivity or embryo implantation or assisted reproductive technology or in vitro fertilization or embryo transfer). A comprehensive literature search was performed on the roles of lipid-related metabolic pathways in embryo implantation published between January 1970 and March 2022. Only studies with original data and reviews published in English were included in this review. Additional information was obtained from references cited in the articles resulting from the literature search.

OUTCOMES

Recent studies have shown that a fatty acids-related pro-inflammatory response in the embryo-endometrium boundary facilitates pregnancy via mediation of prostaglandin signaling. Phospholipid-derived mediators, for example endocannabinoids, lysophosphatidic acid and sphingosine-1-phosphate, are associated with endometrial receptivity, embryo spacing and decidualization based on evidence from both animal and human studies. Progesterone and estrogen are two cholesterol-derived steroid hormones that synergistically mediate the structural and functional alterations in the uterus ready for blastocyst implantation. Variations in serum cholesterol profiles throughout the menstrual cycle imply a demand for steroidogenesis at the time of window of implantation (WOI). Since 2002, endometrial transcriptomic analysis has been serving as a diagnostic tool for WOI dating. Numerous genes that govern lipid homeostasis have been identified and, based on specific alterations of lipidomic signatures differentially expressed in WOI, lipidomic analysis of endometrial fluid provides a possibility for non-invasive diagnosis of lipids alterations during the WOI.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Given that lipid metabolic dysregulation potentially plays a role in infertility, a better understanding of lipid metabolism could have significant clinical implications for the diagnosis and treatment of female reproductive disorders.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The effect of hysteroscopy and conventional curretage versus no hysteroscopy on live birth rates in recurrent in vitro fertilisation failure: a retrospective cohort study from a single referral centre experience

This retrospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the effect of hysteroscopy and endometrial scratching (ES) in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) who do not have an intracavity pathology. The authors retrospectively collected data of patients between 2014 and 2019 from a single centre. The study analysed 350 unexplained RIF patients, of whom, 225 underwent hysteroscopy and endometrial scratching, and 125 did not have a hysteroscopy prior to an IVF cycle. Pregnancy rates among post endometrial scratching and no endometrial scratching cycles were 35.6% versus 27.2%, (p = .048), clinical pregnancy rates were 32.9% versus 21.6% (p = .026) and live birth rates were 26.2% versus 19.2% (p = .039). Although it is not possible to distinguish whether hysteroscopy or injury is effective in improving live birth results, the authors thought that endometrial injury with gentle conventional curettage is effective in patients with recurrent implantation failure.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Hysteroscopy and endometrial injury improve pregnancy outcomes in IVF cycles, but definitive conclusions have been uncertain.What do the results of this study add? The study showed that endometrial injury with gentle conventional curettage during hysteroscopy significantly improved the pregnancy rates of RIF patients compared to the non-hysteroscopy group.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? In cases of recurrent implantation failure, even if hysteroscopy findings are normal, endometrial scratching in the follicular phase increases pregnancy rates compared to the non-hysteroscopy group.

Cumulative live birth rates in egg donor IVF cycles with or without endometrial scratching: is there a residual effect in subsequent embryo transfers? Follow-up results of a RCT in clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

Endometrial scratching (ES) is a simple technique that has been claimed to improve pregnancy rates in patients undergoing assisted reproduction techniques. Our objective was to acknowledge the effects of ES in subsequent embryo transfers by assessing the cumulative live birth rates (LBR) in patients undergoing egg-donor in vitro fertilization (IVF).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a follow-up analysis of the cumulative reproductive outcomes of the 352 patients included in the Endoscratch Trial (NCT03108157) during the twelve months following the randomization date. We compared the outcomes of patients who underwent an ES for the second and/or successive embryo transfers versus those who did not have an ES performed, in order to determine a possible carry over effect that could lead to different LBR in these groups.

RESULTS

Our analysis reveals that both groups (with and without ES performed before the first embryo transfer) had similar cumulative LBR (69.9% vs 65.9% in group A and B respectively, RR: 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92 - 1.22, p= 0.42). When we analyzed the results comparing patients who had received at least an ES before any of the embryo transfers during that period, we did not find any differences in LBR either (68.0% in patients with at least an ES and 67.8% in patients without ES, RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.87 - 1.16, p= 0.96).

CONCLUSION

According to our results, we cannot state that ES has a long term effect on endometrial receptivity of egg recipients as cumulative LBR do not differ from those of patients who do not receive it.

Endometrial injury concurrent with hysteroscopy increases the expression of Leukaemia inhibitory factor: a preliminary study

OBJECTIVE

It is not known by which mechanism endometrial injury increases pregnancy rates. Leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF) is a cytokine involved in wound healing and implantation. The aim of this study was to determine the change in endometrial LIF mRNA expression before and after mechanical injury during hysteroscopy.

METHODS

Forty patients with a history of two or more unsuccessful implantations who decided to undergo hysteroscopy in the proliferative phase were divided into two equal groups: one with endometrial injury (scratching group) and the other with noninjury (control group). Endometrial sampling was conducted before injury on the patients in the scratching group, and then injury was performed with monopolar needle forceps. Only diagnostic hysteroscopy was performed on the patients in the control group. Endometrial tissues were collected using a Pipelle catheter between Days 20 and 23 of the mid-luteal phase of the next cycles in both the scratching and control groups. Endometrial LIF mRNA expression was evaluated with the use of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reactions.

RESULTS

Relative changes in mRNA expression levels of the LIF gene in endometrial samples taken before and after injury were calculated using the 2-ΔΔCt method, and the fold changes obtained were compared between and within the groups. Compared with preinjury values, an 11.1-fold increase was found in postinjury LIF mRNA expression in patients with monopolar forceps injury (p < 0.001). There was a 3.9-fold significant increase in postinjury LIF mRNA levels compared with those in the control group (p < 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The fertility-promoting effect of hysteroscopy-guided mechanical endometrial injury may be mediated by LIF mRNA.

TNF-α Regulated Endometrial Stroma Secretome Promotes Trophoblast Invasion

Successful implantation requires the coordinated migration and invasion of trophoblast cells from out of the blastocyst and into the endometrium. This process relies on signals produced by cells in the maternal endometrium. However, the relative contribution of stroma cells remains unclear. The study of human implantation has major technical limitations, therefore the need of in vitro models to elucidate the molecular mechanisms. Using a recently described 3D in vitro models we evaluated the interaction between trophoblasts and human endometrial stroma cells (hESC), we assessed the process of trophoblast migration and invasion in the presence of stroma derived factors. We demonstrate that hESC promotes trophoblast invasion through the generation of an inflammatory environment modulated by TNF-α. We also show the role of stromal derived IL-17 as a promoter of trophoblast migration through the induction of essential genes that confer invasive capacity to cells of the trophectoderm. In conclusion, we describe the characterization of a cellular inflammatory network that may be important for blastocyst implantation. Our findings provide a new insight into the complexity of the implantation process and reveal the importance of inflammation for embryo implantation.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF)

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

The Addition of Endometrial Injury to Freeze-All Strategy in Women with Repeated Implantation Failures

(1) Background: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) after IVF remains a challenging topic for fertility specialists and a frustrating reality for patients with infertility. Various approaches have been investigated and applied towards the improvement of clinical outcomes. Through a nonrandomized clinical trial, we evaluated the effect of the combination of hysteroscopic endometrial injury and the freeze-all technique on pregnancy parameters in a cohort of RIF patients; (2) Methods: The study group comprised of 30 patients with RIF that underwent a hysteroscopic endometrial injury prior to a frozen embryo transfer cycle; another 30 patients with RIF, comprising the control group, underwent a standard frozen cycle with no adjuvant treatment before. Live birth comprised the primary outcome. Logistic and Poisson regression analyses were implemented to reveal potential independent predictors for all outcomes. (3) Results: Live birth rates were similar between groups (8/30 vs. 3/30, p = 0.0876). Biochemical and clinical pregnancy and miscarriages were also independent of the procedure (p = 0.7812, p = 0.3436 and p = 0.1213, respectively). The only confounding factor that contributed to biochemical pregnancy was the number of retrieved oocytes (0.1618 ± 0.0819, p = 0.0481); (4) Conclusions: The addition of endometrial injury to the freeze-all strategy in infertile women with RIF does not significantly improve pregnancy rates, including live birth. A properly conducted RCT with adequate sample size could give a robust answer.

Repeated implantation failure (RIF): an iatrogenic meaningless definition that generates unnecessary and costly use of add-on procedures

This opinion paper addresses the literature regarding repeated implantation failure (RIF) in IVF embryo transfer programmes. We provide several lines of discussion as to why such diagnosis might be wrong, why it should not be a call for action or a reason to change the course of treatment, and how RIF biases the quality of the publications and leads to the use of unnecessary and costly adjuvant procedures beyond basic IVF. We argue that these costly add-on procedures are being offered to patients in this highly privatized sector to prevent them from quitting the programme and as a by-product to increase the clinic income. The patients, on the other hand, often equate lucrative hi-tech procedures with possible success and request them despite the lack of proof of the efficacy of most of the procedures.

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

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

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Endometrial "Scratching" An update and overview of current research

About one in every six couples is affected by sterility. Assisted reproduction procedures are currently the treatment of choice for a number of patients who desire children. Many causes of sterility can be overcome with the aid of in vitro fertilization, but successful implantation of the embryos is the major limiting factor. Failure of implantation may occur repetitively. In the treatment of sterility, many approaches have been used to overcome the barrier of implantation failure and improve the chances of successful nidation. Scratching the endometrium prior to embryo transfer has been suggested as one means of enhancing the likelihood of implantation. The current literature was examined to investigate if there was any possible benefit from endometrial scratching. The studies were divided according to whether the women suffered from recurrent implantation failure or not. In summary, it was found that unselected subfertile women generally benefit less from endometrial scratching, but scratching appears to be successful in women who have experienced repeated implantation failure. Although the heterogeneous body of data on the subject deserves further clarification. The latest data presented at “European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology” 2018 in Barcelona suggested that the method should be abandoned.

Endometrial scratch vs no intervention in egg donation cycles: the ENDOSCRATCH trial protocol

Background

The effects of endometrial scratching (ES) on embryo implantation have been studied for many years. Several studies have shown better outcomes when performed on patients undergoing intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, but many other reports have not been able to find these differences. As far as cycles with donor eggs are concerned, reported evidence is scarce. Our aim in this trial is to determine if ES is useful for those patients undergoing IVF cycles with donor eggs, in order to assure a greater homogeneity in embryo quality and endometrial preparation.

Methods

This single centre randomized controlled trial will include patients undergoing an egg donation cycle, meeting the inclusion criteria and who accept to participate in the study. Once informed consent is signed, patients will be randomly allocated to the study arm (group A) and then receive ES in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to embryo transfer, or the control arm (group B) without any intervention. All cycle data will be collected and analyzed to obtain the clinical pregnancy and the live birth rates in the two groups.

Discussion

Several studies have tried to determine the effectiveness of an ES in IVF cycles, but it is still unclear due to the heterogeneity of these reports. The aim of this study is to determine if there are differences in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate in egg donor cycles, when comparing an ES performed in the preceding luteal phase versus no intervention, given that embryo quality and endometrial preparation protocols will be comparable.

Trial registration

Ethical approval of version 2.0 of this trial was obtained on the 13th January 2017. It was retrospectively registered on the 5th April 2017 as the ENDOSCRATCH Trial (NCT03108157) in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Endometrial Scratching Effect on Clinical Pregnancy Rates in Patients Undergoing Egg Donor In Vitro Fertilization Cycles: the ENDOSCRATCH Randomized Clinical Trial (NCT03108157)

The potential benefit of endometrial scratching (ES) on embryo implantation is still a controversial subject. At present, the single retrospective study in egg donor IVF cycles concluded that ES has no beneficial effect. Our objective was to determine if there are differences in clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) in egg donor cycles when an ES is performed. This is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in egg donor IVF patients conducted at ProcreaTec Fertility Center in Madrid. Three hundred fifty-two patients were included in total. One hundred sixty-one patients completed the protocol in group A and 172 patients in group B. Patients allocated to group A received an ES in the luteal phase of the cycle preceding the embryo transfer cycle. Group B patients did not receive any intervention. Primary outcome of this RCT was CPR. Secondary outcomes were implantation (IR), miscarriage (MR), ongoing pregnancy (OPR), multiple pregnancy (MulPR), and live birth rates (LBR). CPR was 104 of 161 (64.6%) in group A and 102 of 172 (59.3%) in group B (RR 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.92-1.29); p = 0.378). OPR, MR, MulPR, and LBR were also comparable. No major complications were detected after ES and pregnancy complications were comparable. Our results show that there is no beneficial role of ES in egg donor IVF cycles, considering these patients as the ideal model as they share homogeneous embryo quality and endometrial preparation protocols. This trial was registered on April 5, 2017, as the ENDOSCRATCH trial (NCT03108157).

Therapeutic endometrial scratching and implantation after in vitro fertilization: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To study whether endometrial scratching in the luteal phase before ovarian stimulation increases clinical pregnancy rates in women with one or more previous implantation failures.

DESIGN

A nonblinded multicenter randomized clinical trial.

SETTING

Fertility clinics.

PATIENT(S)

Three hundred four eligible patients scheduled for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection were randomized. The intervention group (n = 151) underwent endometrial scratching in the luteal phase before controlled ovarian stimulation, while no intervention was performed in the control group (n = 153).

INTERVENTION(S)

Endometrial scratching with a Pipelle de Cornier catheter in the luteal phase before ovarian stimulation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Clinical pregnancy rate and prenatal and birth data.

RESULT(S)

There was no overall significant improvement in clinical pregnancy rates between the control and intervention groups (38.5% vs. 44.4%; relative risk = 1.15; confidence interval [0.86-1.55]). However, subgroup analyses revealed that women with three or more previous implantation failures had a significant increase in clinical pregnancy rate (31.1% vs. 53.6%; relative risk = 1.72; confidence interval [1.05-2.83]) after scratching. No difference was seen as regards prenatal and birth data between the two groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Endometrial scratching in the luteal phase before ovarian stimulation significantly enhances the clinical pregnancy rate in women with three or more prior implantation failures. This result seems to corroborate previous reports, which found that particularly women with repeated implantation failure seem to gain a positive effect from endometrial scratching. Importantly, there were no significant differences in prenatal data and birth data between the groups.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01963819.

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.

Effect of endometrial injury during menstruation on clinical outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles: A randomized control trial

Aim

To explore the clinical effect of endometrial injury (EI) on the third day of the menstrual cycle before frozen–thawed embryo transfer (frozen–thawed ET) on patients experienced two or more implantation failures.

Methods

A total of 200 patients who suffered at least two failed hormone‐replacement therapies and frozen–thawed ET were randomly divided into two groups: EI group and control group (n = 100 in each group). Patients in the EI group received local EI with a Pipelle catheter on the third day of the menstrual cycle before frozen–thawed ET. Primary outcomes were live birth, clinical pregnancy and implantation rates. Secondary outcomes were biochemical, multiple and ectopic pregnancy rates and abortion rates.

Results

The rate of live birth in EI group (51.00%) was significantly higher than that of control group (36.00%) (P = 0.032). Clinical pregnancy and implantation rates in EI group were significantly higher comparing to control group (64.00% vs 48.00%, P = 0.023 and 46.74% vs 30.11%, P = 0.001). The rate of multiple pregnancy in EI group (37.50%) was significantly higher than that of control group (18.75%) (P = 0.031). No significant difference in ectopic pregnancy rate and abortion rate was observed between EI group and control group.

Conclusion

Applying EI to patients experienced two or more implantation failures on the third day of the menstrual cycle before frozen–thawed ET can improve clinical outcomes.

The BlastGen study: a randomized controlled trial of blastocyst media supplemented with granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does Embryogen®/BlastGen™ culture medium improve live birth rates compared with standard culture medium for women undergoing IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with poor prognosis.

DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial. A total of 100 couples undergoing IVF/ICSI were randomly allocated to having their inseminated oocytes incubated in either Embryogen®/BlastGen™ sequential culture media or standard Cleavage/Blastocyst sequential culture media for 5 days (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02305420).

RESULTS

No statistically significant difference in live birth rate was found between the control group and the Embryogen®/BlastGen™ group (17 [34%] versus 11 [22%], respectively) (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.22 to 1.32; P = 0.18). After adjustment for maternal age, body mass index and fertilization procedure, the blastulation rate reduced (40.6 ± 26.5 versus 24.6 ± 26.7; RR 0.70, CI 0.52 to 0.95; P < 0.05), and grade of the embryo transferred (OR 0.35, CI 0.16 to 0.77; P < 0.01) when Embryogen®/BlastGen™ medium was used.

CONCLUSION

A significant reduction in day-5 embryo outcome parameters was found using Embryogen®/BlastGen™ compared with standard medium, and insufficient evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes. Taking into consideration the small samples size, study limitations and strict inclusion criteria of this single-centre study, further research is needed to determine the efficacy of Embryogen®/BlastGen™ medium in couples undergoing IVF/ICSI.

Recurrent implantation failure: which patients benefit from endometrial scratching prior to IVF?

PURPOSE

Endometrial scratching (ES) using a biopsy catheter prior to the IVF cycle in the repeated implantation failure (RIF) population has been suggested, but no convincing evidence of its benefit has been presented until now.

METHODS

A retrospective mono-center study among 300 consecutive IVF-RIF cycles following evaluation of the ovarian reserve, hysterosalpingography or hysteroscopy, pelvic ultrasound, thrombophilia evaluation, karyotyping and assessment of male sperm parametrs. The findings within normal limits. All the patients offered ES, 78 consented and underwent ES prior to their next IVF cycle.

RESULTS

A comparison of treatment outcomes between the post-ES cycles (n = 78) and the non-ES cycles (222) demonstrated the following: 34 (43.5%) versus 14 (6.3%) conceptions, respectively (p = 0.001) and 30 (38.4%) versus 2 (0.9%) clinical pregnancies, respectively (p < 0.001%), emphasizing an extremely high biochemical pregnancy rate among the non-ES cycles. Implantation rate was 19.7% versus 0.4%, respectively (p < 0.001) and live birth rate was 33.33% (26 newborns) versus 0.45% (1 newborn), respectively (p < 0.001). Since there were more embryos available for transfer and more top-quality embryos in the post-ES-IVF conception cycles, the role of ES became questionable. A multivariate analysis that included ES and the percentage of top-quality embryos demonstrated that ES was an independent factor highly correlated with conception in this particular RIF population.

CONCLUSIONS

ES proved to be an efficient tool in a particular subgroup of RIF patients with fertility investigation results within normal limits, an optimal ovarian response to gonadotropins, and a high percentage of top-quality embryos. Nevertheless, the results should not be overestimated, since the study has limitations related to its retrospective model.

Randomised controlled trials evaluating endometrial scratching: assessment of methodological issues

STUDY QUESTION

Do randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial scratching suffer from methodological issues including insufficient trial registration, statistical errors or irreproducibility, randomisation errors or miscellaneous issues?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The majority of RCTs investigating endometrial scratching have methodological issues.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A large number of small RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intrauterine insemination (IUI)/intercourse have reported favourable findings. Subsequently, systematic reviews incorporating these RCTs yielded meta-analyses in favour of endometrial scratching. Endometrial scratching has been widely adopted by infertility specialists around the world. Recently, an international RCT including 1364 women reported no benefit from endometrial scratching before IVF.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We evaluated several methodological issues of RCTs investigating the effectiveness of endometrial scratching prior to IVF and IUI/intercourse. We identified 25 RCTs for IVF and 12 RCTs for IUI/intercourse with full-text publication.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We assessed the RCTs on the following criteria: adequacy of trial registration, statistical issues (description of statistical methods and reproducibility of univariable statistical analysis), excessive similarity or difference in baseline characteristics that is not compatible with chance (Monte Carlo simulations and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test) and miscellaneous methodological issues.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of 25 RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching prior to IVF, only eight (32%) had adequate trial registration. In total, 10 (40%) RCTs had issues regarding statistical methods. Nine (69%, 13 applicable) RCTs had at least one inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable statistical analysis for categorical baseline/intermediate characteristics. Statistical results of at least one outcome were not reproducible in 14 (74%, 19 applicable) RCTs. Only two (8%) RCTs had none of the above issues. Suggested by the simulations, these RCTs did not significantly violate the null hypothesis that the baseline characteristics were the results of a properly conducted randomisation process (P = 0.4395).

Of 12 IUI/intercourse RCTs, only 2 (17%) had adequate trial registration. In total, five (42%) studies had issues of statistical methods. Inconsistency between reported and reproduced univariable analysis for baseline/intermediate categorical variable(s) was found in four (57%, 7 applicable) RCTs. Statistical analysis was not reproducible for at least one outcome in eight (80%, 10 applicable) studies. All RCTs had at least one of the above issues. These RCTs were inconsistent with the null hypothesis that their baseline characteristics were the results of proper randomised allocation (P = 1.659*10−7).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We were unable to assess RCTs which were not published as full-text papers. We could not analyse individual participant data to investigate possible reasons for statistical inconsistencies. The method to infer the likelihood of proper random sampling rests on assumptions including independent baseline characteristics, simple randomisation and no publication bias.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The methodological issues common to RCTs evaluating endometrial scratching may have biased the results of the trials. Further development and validation of these novel methods may be helpful for the critical appraisal of RCTs.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was sought to support this work. B.W.M. is supported by a National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck and Guerbet. D.W. is supported by a grant from the Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Austria (PMU Research Fund—PMU FFF Number: L-18/02/006-WET) and by Drs Haackert Foundation, Germany. S.L. is an author of a trial included in this study, an author of an included systematic review and a Cochrane editor. All other authors have no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A

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

RESEARCH QUESTION

To investigate the effect of hysteroscopic endometrial injury for treatment of recurrent implantation failure (RIF).

DESIGN

This prospective and randomized controlled trial included 239 patients who had failed to achieve a clinical pregnancy after the transfer of at least four good-quality embryos in a minimum of three fresh or frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles and were under the age of 40 years, who were randomized into two groups. The injury group (n = 124) received endometrial injury during their hysteroscopic procedure, whereas the control group (n = 115) did not. Patients who had endometrial pathologies were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in duration of gonadotrophin use (8.23 versus 8.30 days), total dose of gonadotrophins (2330 versus 2338 IU), number of oocytes (7.03 versus 8.21), number of mature oocytes (5.27 versus 6.02), number of fertilized oocytes (4.19 versus 4.55), number of good-quality embryos (2.07 versus 2.43), number of embryos transferred (1.97 versus 1.93) or endometrial thickness (9.04 versus 9.35 mm) between the injury group and control group, respectively. Clinical pregnancy rates (25.8% versus 15.6%, P = 0.047), live birth rates (21.8% versus 12.2%, P = 0.049) and implantation rates (14.2% versus 8.8%, P = 0.036) were significantly different, favouring the injury group.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that endometrial injury is beneficial in RIF patients to increase the odds of implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth.

Endometrial scratching prior to IVF; does it help and for whom? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

What is the effect of endometrial scratching in patients with or without prior failed ART cycles on live birth (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

It remains unclear if endometrial scratching improves the chance of pregnancy and, if so, for whom.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Endometrial scratching is hypothesized to improve embryo implantation in ART. Multiple studies have been published, but it remains unclear if endometrial scratching actually improves pregnancy rates and, if so, for which patients.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

For this review, a systematic search for published articles on endometrial scratching and ART was performed on 12 February 2018, in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated endometrial scratching in the cycle prior to the stimulation cycle and reported CPR or LBR were included. RCTs investigating the effect of scratching during the stimulation cycle, or prior to cryo-thaw cycles were excluded. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The effect of scratching was assessed for three different patient groups: patients with no prior IVF/ICSI treatment (Group 0), patients with one failed full IVF/ICSI cycle, including cryo-thaw cycles (Group 1) and patients with two or more failed full IVF/ICSI cycles (Group 2). A meta-analysis was performed when statistical heterogeneity was low; otherwise, a descriptive analysis was performed.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Fourteen RCTs involving 2537 participants were included. Most RCTs contained a high or unclear risk of bias on one or more items. Substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity was present; therefore meta-analysis for LBR and CPR could only be performed on Group 1. For this group, no differences between scratch and control were found for both LBR (risk ratio (RR) 1.01 [95%CI 0.68–1.51]) and CPR (RR 1.04 [95%CI 0.74–1.45]). For Groups 0 and 2, pooled analysis could not be performed, and for both groups the results of the individual RCTs were negative, neutral and positive. Miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates were evaluated for the three groups (0, 1 and 2) together. Both outcomes were not significantly different between scratch and control (miscarriage rate RR 0.82 [95%CI 0.57–1.17] and multiple pregnancy rate RR 1.06 [95%CI 0.84–1.35]). Subgroup analysis, excluding trials with a risk of unintentional endometrial injury in the control group, was performed for Group 0 and 2 for LBR and CPR, and for the overall groups for miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate. This reduced the heterogeneity and allowed for pooled analysis in these subgroups. Results of pooled analysis for the subgroups of Group 0 and 2 showed no significant difference for LBR, but CPR was significantly improved after endometrial scratching (Group 0 RR 1.28 [95%CI 1.02–1.62] and Group 2 RR 2.03 [95%CI 1.20–3.43]). Subgroup analysis of the overall groups showed no significant difference for miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rate.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The main limitations were that many RCTs had a high or unclear risk of bias on one or several items, clinical heterogeneity was still present despite categorizing into three populations, and that not all RCTs could be included in the analyses because separate data for our three groups could not be provided.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

It remains unclear if endometrial scratching improves the chance of pregnancy for women undergoing ART and, if so, for whom. This means endometrial scratching should not be offered in daily practice until results from large and well-designed RCTs and an individual patient data analysis become available.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

No specific funding was sought for the study. The Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecology funds of the University Medical Center of Utrecht were used to support the authors throughout the study period and preparation of the manuscript. None of the authors has a conflict of interest to declare.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Effect of endometrial injury on in vitro fertilization pregnancy rates: a randomized, multicentre study

PURPOSE

To determine if endometrial injury prior to the first or second in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle affects clinical pregnancy rates.

METHODS

This study was a randomized, multicentre, controlled study performed at three Canadian outpatient fertility clinics. Patients undergoing their first or second IVF cycle were randomized to a single endometrial injury 5-10 days prior to the start of gonadotropins in an IVF cycle compared to no injury. The primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were live birth rates, implantation rate, endometrial thickness, number of oocytes retrieved and the rate of embryo cryopreservation.

RESULTS

Fifty-one women were randomized (25 in the en dometrial injury group and 26 in the control group); however, the study was terminated prematurely due to slow recruitment (target 332 patients). Groups were similar at baseline for: age, duration of infertility, BMI, day 3 FSH, and the number having first IVF cycle. The groups were similar for gonadotropin dose, endometrial thickness, number of oocytes retrieved, and embryo cryopreservation rate. The clinical pregnancy rate in the endometrial injury group was 52% (13/25) and 46% (12/26) in the control group (p = 0.45). Live birth rate in the endometrial injury group was 52% (13/25) and 35% (9/26) in the control group (p = 0.17). The implantation rate was also similar (58% vs. 45%, p = 0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not detect a difference in implantation, clinical pregnancy or live birth rates; however, the lack of difference in this study may be because it was underpowered. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATIONS: gov: NCT01983423.

Effect of endometrial mechanical stimulation in an unselected population undergoing in vitro fertilization: futility analysis of a double-blind randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Implantation failure is a major limiting factor of successful in vitro fertilization (IVF). The objective of this study was to determine if endometrial mechanical stimulation (EMS) by endometrial biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to embryo transfer (ET) improves clinical outcomes in an unselected subfertile population.

METHODS

Double-blind, randomized controlled trial of EMS versus sham biopsy and odds of clinical pregnancy after IVF and embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes included spontaneous miscarriage and live birth.

RESULTS

One hundred women enrolled and were randomized from 2013 to 2017. Enrollment was terminated after futility analysis showed no difference in clinical pregnancy between EMS versus control, 47.2% vs 61.7% (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25-1.23, p = 0.15). There were no significant differences between women who underwent EMS and those who did not in terms of positive pregnancy test 54.7% vs 63.8% (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31-1.53, p = 0.36), miscarriage 7.5% vs 2.1% (OR 3.76 95% CI 0.41-34.85, p = 0.22), or live birth 43.4% vs 61.7% (OR 0.48 95% CI 0.21-1.06, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

EMS in the luteal phase of the cycle preceding embryo transfer does not improve clinical outcomes in an unselected subfertile population and may result in a lower live birth rate. We caution the routine use of EMS in an unselected population.

Randomized controlled trial of the effect of endometrial injury on implantation and clinical pregnancy rates during the first ICSI cycle

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether endometrial injury in the cycle preceding controlled ovarian hyperstimulation during intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) improves the implantation and pregnancy rates.

METHODS

Between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2017, a randomized controlled trial was conducted at a center in Egypt among 300 women who met inclusion criteria (first ICSI cycle, aged <40 years, day-3 follicle-stimulating hormone <10 IU/L, normal serum prolactin, no uterine cavity abnormality). The women were randomly allocated using a web-based system to undergo endometrial scratch in the cycle preceding controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (n=150) or to a control group (n=150). Only data analysts were masked to group assignment. The primary outcomes were the implantation and clinical pregnancy rates at 14 days and 4 weeks after embryo transfer, respectively. Analyses were by intention to treat.

RESULTS

The implantation rate was significantly higher in the endometrial scratch group (41.3% [90/218]) than in the control group (30.0% [63/210]; P<0.001). The clinical pregnancy rate was also significantly higher in the endometrial scratch group (44.2% [61/138]) than in the control group (30.4% [41/135]; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Endometrial injury in the cycle preceding the stimulation cycle improved implantation and pregnancy rates during ICSI. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT02660125.

Scratching and IVF: any role?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review updated information on the influence of endometrial scratching on IVF.

RECENT FINDINGS

Endometrial receptivity remains an important rate-limiting step affecting the success of IVF. The current evidence on the effect of endometrial scratching on IVF ranges from marked improvement, no difference to a potentially negative impact. The heterogeneity of studies presents a challenge in interpretation of data for routine clinical practice.

SUMMARY

Endometrial scratching performed in the preceding cycle is associated with improved clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in women with recurrent implantation failure, but not in unselected subfertile women undergoing IVF. Most of the current literature are underpowered and at high risk of bias.

Endometrial 'scratching': what the data show

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Since its first description in 2003, the endometrial scratching procedure has been the topic of over 1000 studies. This procedure, used to improve endometrial receptivity for assisted reproduction, is accessible - any gynecologist can easily perform it - and has been adapted into clinical routine by some reproductive units. However, the available data are controversial, and no biological plausibility exists to support the use of this intervention. This study aims to critically review the existing data, focusing on the last 2 years, regarding the efficiency of endometrial scratching.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of five randomized controlled studies, one meta-analysis, and a systematic review related to endometrial scratching/injury were published in 2014 and 2015. Considerable heterogeneity exists among these studies regarding the selected population, type of treatment, and even timing and devices used to perform the endometrial injury. Importantly, none of these studies reported improved reproductive outcomes in terms of live birth rates following endometrial scratching.

SUMMARY

Overall, data from properly designed and powered randomized controlled studies demonstrate no beneficial effect of this intervention that is based on unknown biological effects. Endometrial scratching produces pain, costs money, and the side-effects of systematic scratching in the production of Asherman syndrome remain to be seen. Think before scratching.

Hysteroscopy after repeated implantation failure of assisted reproductive technology: A meta-analysis

We conducted this meta-analysis to explore the prognostic value of outpatient (or office) hysteroscopy (OH) preceding in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in women who had experienced repeated implantation failure (RIF), particularly in regard to the conflicting evidence reported by previous studies. Two reviewers independently searched Pubmed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase to identify all publications of clinical trials of hysteroscopy with or without endometrial biopsy in RIF patients. The primary outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR). Pooled relative ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Publication bias was detected using funnel plots and Egger's regression tests. Six eligible studies comprising 4143 patients were included. The CPR and LBR were both significantly higher in RIF patients with OH than RIF patients without OH (CPR: RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.14-1.57, P < 0.05; LBR: RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.03-1.62, P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant association between OH and CPR in Asia (CPR: RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.31-1.69; P < 0.05) rather than in Europe (CPR: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.93-1.26; P = 0.291). However, there was no evidence of a significant difference in either CPR or LBR between the normal and abnormal OH groups (CPR: RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83-1.02, P = 0.12; LBR: RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.37-1.56, P = 0.450). Hysteroscopy may potentially improve pregnancy outcomes in patients with RIP.

Comparison of pregnancy rates between patients with and without local endometrial scratching before intrauterine insemination

OBJECTIVES

To determine the implantation success of local endometrial injury in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination following ovulation induction with gonadotropins as an infertility treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this prospective randomized controlled trial, ovulation induction was performed with gonadotropins in 80 patients following intrauterine insemination. In 40 patients, local endometrial injury (scratch) was performed in the midluteal phase of the cycle preceding ovarian stimulation with a Novak curette to the posterior side of the endometrial cavity.

RESULTS

Fifteen pregnancies (37.5%) and 11 clinical pregnancies (27.5%) occurred in the intervention group, whereas eight pregnancies (20%) and five clinical pregnancies (12.5%) occurred in the control group. Although the pregnancy rates and clinical pregnancy rates were increased in the intervention group, no statistically significant difference was found between the intervention and control groups (pregnancy rates: P=0.084; clinical pregnancy rates: P=0.094).

CONCLUSION

Performing local endometrial injury (scratch) in the cycle preceding ovulation induction in patients with a diagnosis of infertility and indication for intrauterine insemination increased the pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates. This increase was not, however, statistically significant. More randomized, controlled, prospective studies with larger patient numbers are required before the use of iatrogenic induction of local endometrial injury can be recommended in routine clinical practice.

The effect of endometrial injury on implantation and clinical pregnancy rates

AIM

To assess the effect of endometrial scratching (ES) on in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome (IVF-ET) Materials and methods: Retrospective matched case control study including all fresh IVF cycles performed between January 2006 and December 2012 at an academic IVF center. ES with an endometrial biopsy catheter was performed in the cycle preceding the index IVF cycle. Patients (n = 238) were pair matched with controls according to age, number of previous failed IVF cycles and number of embryos transferred.

RESULTS

Demographic and cycle characteristics were comparable in all of the following: age, number of previous cycles, number of collected oocyte, number of embryos transferred and quality of transferred embryos. Implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable in both groups (28%, 34% and 18.4% vs 30%, 40.3% and 29%, in ES group and controls, respectively). Logistic regression analysis found no significant association between ES and pregnancy rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical endometrial stimulation did not improve implantation and pregnancy rates. Furthermore, no factors that may predict which patients could benefit from ES were identified. Further prospective studies are warranted to evaluate possible benefits in different subsets of patients such as patients with recurrent implantation failures.

Effect of local endometrial injury in proliferative vs. luteal phase on IVF outcomes in unselected subfertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization

BACKGROUND

Mechanical endometrial injury prior to IVF has been suggested as a means to increase implantation rates by improving endometrial receptivity. However, the effects of endometrial injury in proliferative vs. luteal phase have not been studied before. This study aimed to explore whether endometrial injury in the proliferative phase of the preceding cycle before in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer (IVF-ET) improves the clinical outcomes in unselected subfertile women compared with injury in luteal phase.

METHODS

A group of 142 patients who were good responders to hormonal stimulation were randomized into four groups: injury group (group A: endometrial injury in proliferative phase, n = 38; group B: endometrium injury in luteal phase, n = 32), and non-injury group as control (group C: non-injury in proliferative phase, n = 36; group D: non-injury in luteal phase, n = 36). Patients in injury groups underwent endometrial injury in either proliferative phase or luteal phase in the preceding cycle before IVF treatment. Clinical outcomes including implantation, pregnancy, and live birth rates were analyzed among the four groups.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the four groups including age, body mass index, duration, type and causes of infertility were similar. There were no significant differences in implantation, clinical pregnancy or live birth rates between injury group and non-injury group. Moreover, there were also no significant differences in implantation, clinical pregnancy, or live birth rates in injury in proliferative phase compared with luteal phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial injury in the cycle preceding IVF of unselected subfertile women does not increase implantation, clinical pregnancy, or live birth rates. Furthermore, there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes between endometrial injury in the proliferative phase and injury in the luteal phase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was retrospectively registered on May 26th, 2017 (ChiCTR-IOR-17011506).

Endometrial scratching in women with implantation failure after a first IVF/ICSI cycle; does it lead to a higher live birth rate? The SCRaTCH study: a randomized controlled trial (NTR 5342)

BACKGROUND

Success rates of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) are approximately 30%, with the most important limiting factor being embryo implantation. Mechanical endometrial injury, also called 'scratching', has been proposed to positively affect the chance of implantation after embryo transfer, but the currently available evidence is not yet conclusive. The primary aim of this study is to determine the effect of endometrial scratching prior to a second fresh in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycle on live birth rates in women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle.

METHOD

Multicenter randomized controlled trial in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals. A total of 900 women will be included of whom half will undergo an endometrial scratch in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using an endometrial biopsy catheter. The primary endpoint is the live birth rate after the 2^nd fresh IVF/ICSI cycle. Secondary endpoints are costs, cumulative live birth rate (after the full 2^nd IVF/ICSI cycle and over 12 months of follow-up); clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; multiple pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate and endometrial tissue parameters associated with implantation failure.

DISCUSSION

Multiple studies have been performed to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. Due to heterogeneity in both the method and population being scratched, it remains unclear which group of women will benefit from the procedure. The SCRaTCH trial proposed here aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a large group of women undergoing a second IVF/ICSI cycle.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR 5342 , registered July 31^st, 2015.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Version 4.10, January 4th, 2017.