Search

Hysterosalpingographies (HSGs) have formed an essential part of the fertility workup for more than a century. More recently, tubal flushing, especially with oil-based contrast, has been shown to significantly improve the natural conception rates. Critically, the mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect during tubal flushing is still unclear. This article postulates hypotheses, based on published and own research, on the potential mechanisms and root cause of tubal flushing fertility enhancement. Possible explanations for the increased fertility rates, especially with oil-based contrast, are divided into the biochemical and interfacial effects derived from the contrast properties. The biochemical effects may include the immunological response of the endometrium or peritoneum, the impact on the endometrial opioid receptors or the iodine content. The interfacial effects may include improvement of interfacial factors due to the lubricant effect or dislodgement of mucus debris within the Fallopian tubes. What is already known on this subject? Tubal flushing during hysterosalpingographies (HSGs) increases natural conception rates, and using oil-based over water-based contrast increases that effect even further. However, the underlying mechanism of the observed fertility-enhancing effect is still poorly understood. What do the results of this study add? This article postulates different hypotheses on the potential mechanisms and root cause of the fertility enhancement from tubal flushing. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? We suggest additional research on the different hypotheses, intending to determine which subfertile women will benefit most from tubal flushing using oil-based contrast and at which stage of their subfertility. Furthermore, we suggest research on administering tubal flushing with oil-based contrast, besides in HSG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present a case about Essure® removal surgery in which the third markers of the device have torn off. The woman needed a second surgery for complete removal of the devices. Fluoroscopy during surgery is a good method to visualize the lost fragments. With fluoroscopy, a hysterectomy is not needed for complete removal. It is important to understand the structure of the device and to be aware of the four radiopaque markers during surgery and their removal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The OPTIMIST trial revealed that for women starting in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment, no substantial differences exist in first cycle and cumulative live birth rates between an antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) dose and a standard dose. Female age and body weight have been suggested to cause heterogeneity in the effect of FSH dose individualization. The objective of the current study is to evaluate whether these patient characteristics modify the effect of AFC-based individualized FSH dosing in IVF/ICSI treatment.Material and Methods: A secondary data-analysis of the OPTIMIST trial. Women initiating IVF/ICSI treatment were classified as predicted poor (AFC 0-7), suboptimal (AFC 8-10) or hyper responders (AFC >15), and randomly allocated to a standard FSH dose (150 IU/d) or an individualized FSH dose (450, 225 or 100 IU/d for predicted poor, suboptimal and hyper responders, respectively). In each predicted response category, logistic regression models with interaction terms were used to evaluate the presence of effect modification. The first cycle was analyzed, and the primary outcomes were first complete cycle live birth rate (including fresh plus frozen-thawed embryo transfers) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risks.Results: No effect modification was revealed in the predicted poor (n = 234) and suboptimal (n = 277) responders. In the predicted hyper responders (n = 521), the effect of the individualized FSH dose on the first cycle live birth rate was modified by female age (P = 0.02) and the effect on OHSS risks was modified by body weight (P = 0.02). A dose reduction from 150 to 100 IU/d generally decreased the OHSS risks in predicted hyper responders, but also reduced the chance of a live birth in young women, and had no beneficial impact on OHSS risks in women with a relatively low body weight.Conclusions: In women with a predicted hyper response undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, female age and body weight seem to modify the effect of FSH dose individualization. Although a reduced FSH starting dose generally decreases the OHSS risks, it may also reduce the chance of a live birth, specifically for young women. Future studies could consider these findings when investigating the optimal approach to reduce OHSS risks while maintaining the probability of a live birth for predicted hyper responders in IVF/ICSI treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Obesity in women of reproductive age has deleterious effects on reproductive and offspring health. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between the magnitude of periconceptional body-mass index (BMI) change and maternal and neonatal outcomes in obese infertile women who participated in the LIFEstyle study. The LIFEstyle study was a randomized controlled trial, evaluating if a six-month lifestyle intervention program prior to infertility treatment in obese infertile women improved birth rates, compared to prompt infertility treatment. Methods and findings: This is an exploratory post hoc analysis of the LIFEstyle study. We recorded periconceptional BMI change in women with an ongoing pregnancy, pooling data of all women, regardless of randomization arm. Periconceptional BMI change was calculated using weight at randomization and the periconceptional weight (measured in kilograms 12 weeks before or after conception and expressed as BMI change in units BMI (kg/m2)). Subsequently, women were categorized into quartiles according to the magnitude of their periconceptional change in BMI. The odds of maternal and neonatal outcomes were calculated using logistic regression analysis, comparing women in each of the first three weight change quartiles separately, and combined, to women in the fourth quartile. The fourth quartile was chosen as reference group, since these women had the least weight loss. We adjusted for periconceptional BMI, nulliparity and smoking status. In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis for singleton pregnancies. In the LIFEstyle study, 321 obese infertile women achieved an ongoing pregnancy which was conceived within 24 months after randomization. Periconceptional BMI change was available in 244 of these women (76%). Median BMI at randomization was 35.9 kg/m2. Women in the first quartile (Q1) had a periconceptional BMI change of <-2.1 kg/m2, women in the second quartile (Q2) -2.1 to -0.9 kg/m2, women in the third quartile (Q3) -0.9 to 0.1 kg/m2 and women in the fourth quartile (Q4) gained ≥0.1 kg/m2. There were no significant differences between women in the quartiles regarding rates of excessive gestational weight gain (in term pregnancies), gestational diabetes, preterm birth, induction of labor, spontaneous vaginal birth and Caesarean section. Compared to women in Q4, the adjusted odds ratios, aOR, and 95% confidence interval for a hypertensive complication were; 0.55 (0.22–1.42) for women in Q1, 0.30 (0.12–0.78) for women in Q2, 0.39 (0.16–0.96) for women in Q3 and 0.39 (0.19–0.82) for women in Q1 to Q3 combined. In the subgroup analysis, investigating singleton pregnancies only, the statistically significant decreased rate of a hypertensive complication remained in women in Q2 (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10–0.72) and Q3 (aOR 0.39, 95%CI 0.16–0.98) and when comparing women in Q1 to Q3 together to women in Q4 (aOR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18–0.80). Furthermore, there was a significantly decreased aOR (95%CI) of preterm birth in women in Q2 (0.24, 0.06–0.98) and when combining women in Q1 to Q3 (0.37, 0.14–0.97) compared to women in Q4. Conclusions: These results suggest that a periconceptional decrease in BMI in obese infertile women could lead to a decrease of the rates of hypertensive pregnancy complications and preterm birth. The results are limited by the exploratory nature of the analyses and further evidence is necessary to provide more definitive conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Does an increased FSH dose result in higher cumulative live birth rates in women with a predicted poor ovarian response, apparent from a low antral follicle count (AFC), scheduled for IVF or ICSI?Summary Answer: In women with a predicted poor ovarian response (AFC < 11) undergoing IVF/ICSI, an increased FSH dose (225/450 IU/day) does not improve cumulative live birth rates as compared to a standard dose (150 IU/day).What Is Known Already: In women scheduled for IVF/ICSI, an ovarian reserve test (ORT) can predict ovarian response to stimulation. The FSH starting dose is often adjusted based on the ORT from the belief that it will improve live birth rates. However, the existing RCTs on this topic, most of which show no benefit, are underpowered.Study Design, Size, Duration: Between May 2011 and May 2014, we performed an open-label multicentre RCT in women with an AFC < 11 (Dutch Trial Register NTR2657). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization and resulting in a live birth. We needed 300 women to assess whether an increased dose strategy would increase the cumulative live birth rate from 25 to 40% (two-sided alpha-error 0.05, power 80%).Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Women with an AFC ≤ 7 were randomized to an FSH dose of 450 IU/day or 150 IU/day, and women with an AFC 8-10 were randomized to 225 IU or 150 IU/day. In the standard group, dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: In total, 511 women were randomized, 234 with an AFC ≤ 7 and 277 with an AFC 8-10. The cumulative live birth rate for increased versus standard dosing was 42.4% (106/250) versus 44.8% (117/261), respectively [relative risk (RR): 0.95 (95%CI, 0.78-1.15), P = 0.58]. As an increased dose strategy was more expensive [delta costs/woman: €1099 (95%CI, 562-1591)], standard FSH dosing was the dominant strategy in our economic analysis.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Despite our training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. As this open study permitted small dose adjustments between cycles, potential selective cancelling of cycles in women treated with 150 IU could have influenced the cumulative results. However, since first cycle live birth rates point in the same direction we consider it unlikely that the open design masked a potential benefit for the individualized strategy.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Since an increased dose in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a predicted poor response (AFC < 11) does not improve live birth rates and is more expensive, we recommend using a standard dose of 150 IU/day in these women.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). T.C.T., H.L.T. and S.C.O. received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. H.R.V. receives monetary compensation as a member on an external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutical BV. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare.Trial Registration Number: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number NTR2657.Trial Registration Date: 20 December 2010.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: 12 May 2011. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Female sterilization is one of the most common contraceptive methods. A small number of women, however, opt for reversal of sterilization procedures after they experience regret. Procedures can be performed by laparotomy or laparoscopy, with or without robotic assistance. Another commonly utilized alternative is IVF. The choice between surgery and IVF is often influenced by reimbursement politics for that particular geographic location.Objective and Rationale: We evaluated the fertility outcomes of different surgical methods available for the reversal of female sterilization, compared these to IVF and assessed the prognostic factors for success.Search Methods: Two search strategies were employed. Firstly, we searched for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies presenting fertility outcomes of sterilization reversal up to July 2016. Data on the following outcomes were collected: pregnancy rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, cost of the procedure and operative time. Eligible study designs included prospective or retrospective studies, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and case series. No age restriction was applied. Exclusion criteria were patients suffering from tubal infertility from any other reason (e.g. infection, endometriosis and adhesions from previous surgery) and studies including <10 participants. The following factors likely to influence the success of sterilization reversal procedures were then evaluated: female age, BMI and duration and method of sterilization. Secondly, we searched for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies that compared reversal of sterilization to IVF and evaluated them for pregnancy outcomes and cost effectiveness.Outcomes: We included 37 studies that investigated a total of 10 689 women. No randomized controlled trials were found. Most studies were retrospective cohort studies of a moderate quality. The pooled pregnancy rate after sterilization reversal was 42-69%, with heterogeneity seen from the different methods utilized. The reported ectopic pregnancy rate was 4-8%. The only prognostic factor affecting the chance of conception was female age. The surgical approach (i.e. laparotomy [microscopic], laparoscopy or robotic) had no impact on the outcome, with the exception of the macroscopic laparotomic technique, which had inferior results and is not currently utilized. For older women, IVF could be a more cost-effective alternative for the reversal of sterilization. However, direct comparative data are lacking and a cut-off age cannot be stated.Wider Implications: In sterilized women who suffer regret, surgical tubal re-anastomosis is an effective treatment, especially in younger women. However, there is a need for randomized controlled trials comparing the success rates and costs of surgical reversal with IVF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large number of studies have shown an association between inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage. It has been hypothesized that anticoagulant therapy might reduce the number of miscarriages and stillbirth in these women. In the absence of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of anticoagulant therapy in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, a randomized trial with adequate power that addresses this question is needed. The objective of the ALIFE2 study is therefore to evaluate the efficacy of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in women with inherited thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage, with live birth as the primary outcome. Methods/Design: Randomized study of LMWH plus standard pregnancy surveillance versus standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Study population: pregnant women of less than 7 weeks' gestation, and confirmed inherited thrombophilia with a history of 2 or more miscarriages or intra-uterine fetal deaths, or both. Setting: multi-center study in centers from the Dutch Consortium of Fertility studies; centers outside the Netherlands are currently preparing to participate. Intervention: LMWH enoxaparin 40 mg subcutaneously once daily started prior to 7 weeks gestational age plus standard pregnancy surveillance or standard pregnancy surveillance alone. Main study parameters/endpoints: the primary efficacy outcome is live birth. Secondary efficacy outcomes include adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as miscarriage, pre-eclampsia, syndrome of hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP syndrome), fetal growth restriction, placental abruption, premature delivery and congenital malformations. Safety outcomes include bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia and skin reactions. Discussion: After an initial period of slow recruitment, the recruitment rate for the study has increased. Improved awareness of the study and acknowledgement of the need for evidence are thought to be contributing to the improved recruitment rates. We aim to increase the number of recruiting centers in order to increase enrollment into the ALIFE2 study. The study website can be accessed via www.ALIFE2study.org. Trial registration: The ALIFE2 study was registered on 19 March 2012 under registration number NTR3361 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmatic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment a large drop is present between embryo transfer and occurrence of pregnancy. The implantation rate per embryo transferred is only 30%. Studies have shown that minor intrauterine abnormalities can be found in 11-45% of infertile women with a normal transvaginal sonography or hysterosalpingography. Two randomised controlled trials have indicated that detection and treatment of these abnormalities by office hysteroscopy after two failed IVF cycles leads to a 9-13% increase in pregnancy rate. Therefore, screening of all infertile women for intracavitary pathology prior to the start of IVF/ICSI is increasingly advocated. In absence of a scientific basis for such a policy, this study will assess the effects and costs of screening for and treatment of unsuspected intrauterine abnormalities by routine office hysteroscopy, with or without saline infusion sonography (SIS), prior to a first IVF/ICSI cycle. Methods/design: Multicenter randomised controlled trial in asymptomatic subfertile women, indicated for a first IVF/ICSI treatment cycle, with normal findings at transvaginal sonography. Women with recurrent miscarriages, prior hysteroscopy treatment and intermenstrual blood loss will not be included. Participants will be randomised for a routine fertility work-up with additional (SIS and) hysteroscopy with on-the-spot-treatment of predefined intrauterine abnormalities versus the regular fertility work-up without additional diagnostic tests. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment after randomisation. Secondary study outcome parameters are the cumulative implantation rate; cumulative miscarriage rate; patient preference and patient tolerance of a SIS and hysteroscopy procedure. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle, using univariate and multivariate logistic regression and cox regression. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to evaluate the costs of the additional tests as routine procedure. In total 700 patients will be included in this study. Discussion: The results of this study will help to clarify the significance of hysteroscopy prior to IVF treatment [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Costs of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are high, which is partly due to the use of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). FSH is usually administered in a standard dose. However, due to differences in ovarian reserve between women, ovarian response also differs with potential negative consequences on pregnancy rates. A Markov decision-analytic model showed that FSH dose individualisation according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost-effective in women who are eligible for IVF. However, this has never been confirmed in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT). The aim of the present study is to assess whether an individualised FSH dose regime based on an ovarian reserve test (ORT) is more cost-effective than a standard dose regime. Methods/Design: Multicentre RCT in subfertile women indicated for a first IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle, who are aged < 44 years, have a regular menstrual cycle and no major abnormalities at transvaginal sonography. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome, endocrine or metabolic abnormalities and women undergoing IVF with oocyte donation, will not be included. Ovarian reserve will be assessed by measuring the antral follicle count. Women with a predicted poor response or hyperresponse will be randomised for a standard versus an individualised FSH regime (150 IU/day, 225-450 IU/day and 100 IU/day, respectively). Participants will undergo a maximum of three stimulation cycles during maximally 18 months. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are parameters for ovarian response, multiple pregnancies, number of cycles needed per live birth, total IU of FSH per stimulation cycle, and costs. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to assess whether the health and associated economic benefits of individualised treatment of subfertile women outweigh the additional costs of an ORT. Discussion: The results of this study will be integrated into a decision model that compares cost-effectiveness of the three dose-adjustment strategies to a standard dose strategy. The study outcomes will provide scientific foundation for national and international guidelines. Trial registration: NTR2657 [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]