Search

STUDY QUESTION Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) prior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) or HSG prior to HyFoSy affect visible tubal patency when compared HSG or HyFoSy alone? SUMMARY ANSWER Undergoing either HyFoSy or HSG prior to tubal patency testing by the alternative method does not demonstrate a significant difference in visible tubal patency when compared to HyFoSy or HSG alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY HyFoSy and HSG are two commonly used visual tubal patency tests with a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for evaluating tubal patency. These tests may also improve fertility, although the underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. One of the hypotheses points to a dislodgment of mucus plugs that may have disrupted the patency of the Fallopian tubes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled FOAM study, in which women underwent tubal patency testing by HyFoSy and HSG, randomized for order of the procedure. Participants either had HyFoSy first and then HSG, or vice versa. Here, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of tubal patency testing by HyFoSy or HSG prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method on visible tubal patency, compared to each method alone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Infertile women aged between 18 and 41 years scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible for participating in the FOAM study. Women with anovulatory cycles, endometriosis, or with a partner with male infertility were excluded. To evaluate the effect HyFoSy on tubal patency, we relied on HSG results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HSG in those who underwent and who did not undergo HyFoSy prior to their HSG (HyFoSy prior to HSG versus HSG alone). To evaluate the effect of HSG on tubal patency, we relied on HyFoSy results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HyFoSy in those who underwent and who did not undergo HSG prior to their HyFoSy (HSG prior to HyFoSy versus HyFoSy alone). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Between May 2015 and January 2019, we randomized 1160 women (576 underwent HyFoSy first followed by HSG, and 584 underwent HSG first followed by HyFoSy). Among the women randomized to HyFoSy prior to HSG, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HSG in 467/537 (87%) women, compared with 472/544 (87%) women who underwent HSG alone (risk difference 0.2%; 95% CI: −3.8% to 4.2%). Among the women randomized to HSG prior to HyFoSy, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HyFoSy in 394/471 (84%) women, compared with 428/486 (88%) women who underwent HyFoSy alone (risk difference −4.4%; 95% CI: −8.8% to 0.0%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The results of this secondary analysis should be interpreted as exploratory and cannot be regarded as definitive evidence. Furthermore, it has to be noted that pregnancy outcomes were not considered in this analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Tubal patency testing by either HyFoSy or HSG, prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method does not significantly affect visible tubal patency, when compared to alternative method alone. This suggests that both methods may have comparable abilities to dislodge mucus plugs in the Fallopian tubes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data. H.R.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford University Press in the role of Deputy Editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board as an independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. M.v.W. is coordinating editor of Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology. B.W.J.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437) and research funding from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Organon and Merck KGaA, and travel support from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports holding stocks of ObsEva. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring and travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Implantation failure after transferring morphologically "good‐quality" embryos in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) may be explained by impaired endometrial receptivity. Analyzing the endometrial transcriptome analysis may reveal the underlying processes and could help in guiding prognosis and using targeted interventions for infertility. This exploratory study investigated whether the endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with short‐term or long‐term implantation outcomes (ie success or failure). Material and methods: Mid‐luteal phase endometrial biopsies of 107 infertile women with one full failed IVF/ICSI cycle, obtained within an endometrial scratching trial, were subjected to RNA‐sequencing and differentially expressed genes analysis with covariate adjustment (age, body mass index, luteinizing hormone [LH]‐day). Endometrial transcriptomes were compared between implantation failure and success groups in the short term (after the second fresh IVF/ICSI cycle) and long term (including all fresh and frozen cycles within 12 months). The short‐term analysis included 85/107 women (33 ongoing pregnancy vs 52 no pregnancy), excluding 22/107 women. The long‐term analysis included 46/107 women (23 'fertile' group, ie infertile women with a live birth after ≤3 embryos transferred vs 23 recurrent implantation failure group, ie no live birth after ≥3 good quality embryos transferred), excluding 61/107 women not fitting these categories. As both analyses drew from the same pool of 107 samples, there was some sample overlap. Additionally, cell type enrichment scores and endometrial receptivity were analyzed, and an endometrial development pseudo‐timeline was constructed to estimate transcriptomic deviations from the optimum receptivity day (LH + 7), denoted as ΔWOI (window of implantation). Results: There were no significantly differentially expressed genes between implantation failure and success groups in either the short‐term or long‐term analyses. Principal component analysis initially showed two clusters in the long‐term analysis, unrelated to clinical phenotype and no longer distinct following covariate adjustment. Cell type enrichment scores did not differ significantly between groups in both analyses. However, endometrial receptivity analysis demonstrated a potentially significant displacement of the WOI in the non‐pregnant group compared with the ongoing pregnant group in the short‐term analysis. Conclusions: No distinct endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with either implantation failure or success in infertile women. However, there may be differences in the extent to which the WOI is displaced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference −1.2%, 95% CI: −3.4% to 1.5%; P  = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS We studied 1160 infertile women (18–41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies—management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results—the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference −1.2%; 95% CI: −3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €−119; 95% CI: €−125 to €−114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting—and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Turner syndrome (TS) is accompanied with premature ovarian insufficiency. Oocyte vitrification is an established method to preserve fertility. However, data on the oocyte yield in women with TS who vitrify their oocytes and the return rate to utilize the oocytes are scarce. Methods: Retrospective multicenter cohort study. Data was collected from medical records of women with TS who started oocyte vitrification between 2010 and 2021. Results: Thirty-three women were included. The median cumulative number of vitrified oocytes was 20 per woman. Complications occurred in 4% of the cycles. Significant correlations were found between the cumulative number of vitrified oocytes and AMH (r = 0.54 and p < 0.01), AFC (r = 0.49 and p < 0.01), percentage of 46,XX cells (r = 0.49 and p < 0.01), and FSH (r = −0.65 and p < 0.01). Spontaneous (n = 8) and IVF (n = 2) pregnancies occurred in 10 women ± three years after vitrification. So far, none of the women have returned to utilize their vitrified oocytes. Conclusions: Oocyte vitrification is a feasible fertility preservation option for women with TS, particularly in those with 46,XX cell lines or sufficient ovarian reserve. Multiple stimulation cycles are recommended to reach an adequate number of vitrified oocytes for pregnancy. It is too early to draw conclusions about the utilization of vitrified oocytes in women with TS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The endometrial microbiota composition may be associated with implantation success. However, a 'core' composition has not yet been defined. This exploratory study analysed the endometrial microbiota by 16S rRNA sequencing (V1–V2 region) of 141 infertile women whose first IVF/ICSI cycle failed and compared the microbiota profiles of women with and without a live birth within 12 months of follow-up, and by infertility cause and type. Lactobacillus was the most abundant genus in the majority of samples. Women with a live birth compared to those without had significantly higher Lactobacillus crispatus relative abundance (RA) (p = 0.029), and a smaller proportion of them had ≤ 10% L. crispatus RA (42.1% and 70.4%, respectively; p = 0.015). A smaller proportion of women in the male factor infertility group had ≤ 10% L. crispatus RA compared to women in the unexplained and other infertility causes groups combined (p = 0.030). Women with primary infertility compared to secondary infertility had significantly higher L. crispatus RA (p = 0.004); lower proportions of them had ≤ 10% L. crispatus RA (p = 0.009) and > 10% Gardnerella vaginalis RA (p = 0.019). In conclusion, IVF/ICSI success may be associated with L. crispatus RA and secondary infertility with endometrial dysbiosis, more often than primary infertility. These hypotheses should be tested in rigorous well-powered longitudinal studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples?Summary Answer: HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful.What Is Known Already: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy.Study Design, Size, Duration: This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference -8%; 95% CI: -27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of -2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn.Wider Implications Of the Findings: HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foam® kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers' fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest.Trial Registration Number: NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl).Trial Registration Date: 19 August 2014.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: 7 May 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating ectopic pregnancy have reported many different outcomes, which are themselves often defined and measured in distinct ways. This level of variation results in an inability to compare results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set to ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are collected consistently will guide future research in ectopic pregnancy.Study Aim: To develop and implement a core outcome set to guide future research in ectopic pregnancy.Methods and Analysis: We have established an international steering group of key stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, researchers, and individuals with lived experience of ectopic pregnancy. We will identify potential outcomes from ectopic pregnancy from a comprehensive literature review of published randomised controlled trials. We will then utilise a modified Delphi method to prioritise outcomes. Subsequently, key stakeholders will be invited to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (not important) to 9 (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote whole and individual stakeholder group convergence towards consensus 'core' outcomes. We will also establish standardised definitions and recommend high-quality measurements for individual core outcomes.Trial Registration: COMET 1492 . Registered in November 2019. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unexplained infertility is a common diagnosis among couples with infertility. Pragmatic treatment options in these couples are directed at trying to improve chances to conceive, and consequently intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation and in vitro fertilization (IVF) are standard clinical practice, while expectant management remains an important alternative. While evidence on IVF or IUI with ovarian stimulation versus expectant management was inconclusive, these interventions seem more effective in couples with a poor prognosis of natural conception. Strategies such as strict cancellation criteria and single-embryo transfer aim to reduce multiple pregnancies without compromising cumulative live birth. We propose a prognosis-based approach to manage couples with unexplained infertility so as to expose less couples to unnecessary interventions and less mothers and children to the potential adverse effects of ovarian stimulation or laboratory procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For most tubal ectopic pregnancies (EP) surgery is the treatment of first choice. Whether surgical treatment should be performed conservatively (salpingostomy) or radically (salpingectomy) in women wishing to preserve their reproductive capacity, is subject to debate. Salpingostomy preserves the tube, but bears the risks of both persistent trophoblast and repeat ipsilateral tubal EP. Salpingectomy, avoids these risks, but leaves only one tube for reproductive capacity. This study aims to reveal the trade-off between both surgical options: whether the potential advantage of salpingostomy, i.e. a better fertility prognosis as compared to salpingectomy, outweighs the potential disadvantages, i.e. persistent trophoblast and an increased risk for a repeat EP. Methods/Design: International multi centre randomised controlled trial comparing salpingostomy versus salpingectomy in women with a tubal EP without contra lateral tubal pathology. Hemodynamically stable women with a presumptive diagnosis of tubal EP, scheduled for surgery, are eligible for inclusion. Patients pregnant after in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and/or known documented tubal pathology are excluded. At surgery, a tubal EP must be confirmed. Only women with a tubal EP amenable to both interventions and a healthy contra lateral tube are included. Salpingostomy and salpingectomy are performed according to standard procedures of participating hospitals. Up to 36 months after surgery, women will be contacted to assess their fertility status at six months intervals starting form the day of the operation. The primary outcome measure is the occurrence of spontaneous viable intra uterine pregnancy. Secondary outcome measures are persistent trophoblast, repeat EP, all pregnancies including those resulting from IVF and financial costs. The analysis will be performed according to the intention to treat principle. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed within a decision analysis framework, based on costs per live birth, including IVF treatment whenever a spontaneous pregnancy does not occur. Patients' preferences will be assessed using a discrete choice experiment. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence on the trade off between salpingostomy and salpingectomy for tubal EP in view of the pros and cons of both interventions and will offer guidance to clinicians in making the right treatment choice. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37002267 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with ectopic pregnancy (EP) and low serum hCG concentrations and women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) and plateauing serum hCG levels are commonly treated with systemic methotrexate (MTX). However, there is no evidence that treatment in these particular subgroups of women is necessary as many of these early EPs may resolve spontaneously. The aim of this study is whether expectant management in women with EP or PUL and with low but plateauing serum hCG concentrations is an alternative to MTX treatment in terms of treatment success, future pregnancy, health related quality of life and costs. Methods/Design: A multicentre randomised controlled trial in The Netherlands. Hemodynamically stable patients with an EP visible on transvaginal ultrasound and a plateauing serum hCG concentration < 1,500 IU/L or with a persisting PUL with plateauing serum hCG concentrations < 2,000 IU/L are eligible for the trial. Patients with a viable EP, signs of tubal rupture/ abdominal bleeding, or a contra-indication for MTX will not be included. Expectant management is compared with systemic MTX in a single dose intramuscular regimen (1 mg/kg) in an outpatient setting. Serum hCG levels are monitored weekly; in case of inadequately declining, systemic MTX is installed or continued. In case of hemodynamic instability and/or signs of tubal rupture, surgery is performed. The primary outcome measure is an uneventful decline of serum hCG to an undetectable level by the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes are (re)interventions (additional systemic MTX injections and/or surgery), treatment complications, health related quality of life, financial costs, and future fertility. Analysis is performed according to the intention to treat principle. Quality of life is assessed by questionnaires before and at three time points after randomisation. Costs are expressed as direct costs with data on costs and used resources in the participating centres. Fertility is assessed by questionnaires after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Patients' preferences will be assessed using a discrete choice experiment. Discussion: This trial will provide guidance on the present management dilemmas in women with EPs and PULs with low and plateauing serum hCG concentrations. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 48210491 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tubal pathology is a causative factor in 20% of subfertile couples. Traditionally, tubal testing during fertility work-up is performed by hysterosalpingography (HSG). Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a new technique that is thought to have comparable accuracy as HSG, while it is less expensive and more patient friendly. HyFoSy would be an acceptable alternative for HSG, provided it has similar effectiveness in terms of patient outcomes.Methods/design: We aim to compare the effectiveness and costs of management guided by HyFoSy or by HSG. Consenting women will undergo tubal testing by both HyFoSy and HSG in a randomized order during fertility work-up. The study group will consist of 1163 subfertile women between 18 and 41 years old who are scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male subfertility or a known contrast (iodine) allergy will be excluded. We anticipate that 7 % (N = 82) of the participants will have discordant test results for HyFoSy and HSG. These participants will be randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or a management strategy based on HSG, resulting in either a diagnostic laparoscopy with chromopertubation or a strategy that assumes tubal patency (intrauterine insemination or expectant management). The primary outcome is ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are patient pain scores, time to pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, preterm birth rate and number of additional treatments. Costs will be estimated by counting resource use and calculating unit prices.Discussion: This trial will compare the effectiveness and costs of HyFoSy versus HSG in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women.Trial Registration: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 4746, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 19 August 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]