The cost-effectiveness of transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy versus hysterosalpingography in the work-up for subfertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Is a strategy starting with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy (THL) cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with hysterosalpingography (HSG) in the work-up for subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: A strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the work-up for subfertile women. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Tubal pathology is a common cause of subfertility and tubal patency testing is one of the cornerstones of the fertility work-up. Both THL and HSG are safe procedures and can be used as a first-line tubal patency test. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This economic evaluation was performed alongside a randomized clinical trial comparing THL and HSG in 300 subfertile women, between May 2013 and October 2016. For comparisons of THL and HSG, the unit costs were split into three main categories: costs of the diagnostic procedure, costs of fertility treatments and the costs for pregnancy outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Subfertile women scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible. Women were randomized to a strategy starting with THL or a strategy starting with HSG. The primary outcome of the study was conception leading to a live birth within 24 months after randomization. The mean costs and outcomes for each treatment group were compared. We used a non-parametric bootstrap resampling of 1000 re-samples to investigate the effect of uncertainty and we created a cost-effectiveness plane and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We allocated 149 women to THL and 151 to HSG, and we were able to achieve complete follow-up of 142 versus 148 women, respectively. After the fertility work-up women were treated according to the Dutch guidelines and based on a previously published prognostic model. In the THL group, 83 women (58.4%) conceived a live born child within 24 months after randomization compared to 82 women (55.4%) in the HSG group (difference 3.0% (95% CI: -8.3 to 14.4)). The mean total costs per woman were lower in the THL group compared to the HSG group (THL group €4991 versus €5262 in the HSG group, mean cost difference = -€271 (95% CI -€273 to -€269)). Although the costs of only the diagnostic procedure were higher in the THL group, in the HSG group more women underwent diagnostic and therapeutic laparoscopies and also had higher costs for fertility treatments. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our trial was conducted in women with a low risk of tubal pathology; therefore, the results of our study are not generalizable to women with high risk of tubal pathology. Furthermore, this economic analysis was based on the Dutch healthcare system, and possibly our results are not generalizable to countries with different strategies or costs for fertility treatments. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: After 2 years of follow-up, we found a live birth rate of 58.4% in the THL group versus 55.4% in the HSG group and a lower mean cost per woman in the THL group, with a cost difference of -€271. The findings of our trial suggest that a strategy starting with THL is cost-effective compared to a strategy starting with HSG in the workup for subfertile women. However, the cost difference between the two diagnostic strategies is limited compared to the total cost per woman in our study and before implementing THL as a first-line strategy for tubal patency testing, more research in other fields, such as patient preference and acceptance, is necessary. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors received no external financial support for the research. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA, Guerbet. B.W.J.M. reports receiving travel support from Merck KGaA. C.T.P. reports consultancy for Guerbet, outside of this manuscript. All other authors have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR3462.

Hysterosalpingography is obsolete: hysterosalpingo-contrast foam sonography should be the alternative.

Current evidence suggests that the hysterosalpingo-foam sonography test (HyFoSy) has emerged as a new option to make Fallopian tube assessment easier. Several published studies have compared the different types of tubal patency test available with the accepted gold standard, laparoscopy and dye, endorsing the advantages of HyFoSy over the other techniques. However, the authors wonder why professionals nowadays do not indicate HyFoSy as a first-choice diagnostic tool, with X-ray hysterosalpingography as still the most recommended procedure in outpatients. The aim of this article is to highlight the latest updates on this topic in order to raise awareness of the benefits of hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography as well as provide some tips for performing HyFoSy to obtain the maximum information in a single consultation.

Fertility-related quality of life in subfertile women undergoing tubal testing with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy or hysterosalpingography.

OBJECTIVE: Both subfertility and its management can have significant impact on quality of life (QoL). Tubal patency testing as part of the fertility work-up, is considered to cause more physical complaints and stress than other tests. Pain scores for HSG are higher than for THL, but acceptability of the procedures was found to be comparable. Fertility-related QoL has not yet been studied in women undergoing tubal patency testing. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a standardized questionnaire study alongside a previously reported randomized controlled trial comparing THL and HSG in subfertile women, in which 24-month live birth rates occurred in 58.5% versus 55.4%, respectively. We randomly assigned 300 subfertile women to THL or HSG between May 2013 and October 2016. Women were eligible if they were undergoing a fertility work-up with an indication for evaluation of tubal patency. Fertility-related QoL was measured six weeks after the procedure with the validated FertiQoL questionnaire. The scores for the Core scale and subscales between THL and HSG were compared using Mann-Whitney-U test and multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 84 women in the THL group (56%) and 96 women in the HSG group (64%). Core scores were 74.6 ± 12.8 for THL and 73.4 ± 12.4 for HSG (p = 0.39). Scores for the Emotional domain were 64.5 ± 19.0 for THL versus 66.0 ± 16.3 (p = 0.67) for HSG. Scores for the 'Mind-body' domain for THL were 76.9 ± 15.6 versus 74.1 ± 18.0 for HSG (p = 0.42), while scores for the Relational domain were 79.2 ± 12.9 for THL and 76.9 ± 15.6 for HSG (p = 0.21). Scores for the Social domain for THL were 77.9 ± 15.1 versus 76.7 ± 14.1, (p = 0.42). The multiple linear regression analysis showed only a statistical significant positive effect of older age on the score for the Emotional domain (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: In a preselected group of women with low risk for tubal pathology we did not find differences in fertility-related QoL between tubal patency testing with THL versus HSG.

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial.

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.

A novel concept for female infertility exploration: the Fertiliscan©, a dedicated all-in-one 3D ultrasound exploration.

The investigation of the probable cause of infertility is mandatory to propose an accurate therapeutic option to the infertile couple i.e. good chance of pregnancy. Usually, this investigation in woman includes at least hormonal dosages to estimate the ovarian function and reserve, a pelvic ultrasound scan and a hystero-salpingography to determine tubal patency. We introduce a unique investigation based on the realization of a high quality 3D ultrasound scan that involves the assessment of tubal patency. It is called Fertiliscan as opposed to the standard pelvic scan. The Fertiliscan assesses both the anatomy and the function of the uterus, the ovaries as well as the tubes. It includes a hystero-sonography for the analysis of the uterine cavity and with respect to tubal patency, a hysterosalpingo-foam-sonogography (Hyfosy). The investigation is woman-friendly, cheaper and shorter. It allows a fast track to a treatment if needed and shortens "time to pregnancy" for the couple.

The therapeutic effect of hysterosalpingography in couples with unexplained subfertility: a post-hoc analysis of a prospective multi-centre cohort study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Hysterosalpingography (HSG) with an oil-based contrast has been shown to increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared with HSG with water-based contrast, but it remains unclear if an effect of HSG occurs compared with no HSG. DESIGN: A secondary data-analysis of a prospective cohort study among 4556 couples that presented with unexplained subfertility in 38 clinics in the Netherlands between January 2002 and December 2004. A time-varying Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighing was used to analyse ongoing pregnancy rates in women after undergoing the HSG procedure (with the use of either water- or oil-based contrast media) compared with women who did not undergo HSG. RESULTS: The probability of natural conception within 24 months after first presentation at the fertility clinic was increased after HSG, regardless of the type of contrast medium used, compared with no HSG (adjusted hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.73, corresponding to an absolute increase in 6-month pregnancy rate of +6%). When this analysis was limited to HSGs that were made with water-contrast, the treatment effect remained (adjusted hazard ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.70). CONCLUSIONS: HSG increases the ongoing pregnancy rate of couples with unexplained subfertility compared with no HSG, regardless of the contrast medium used. Results need to be validated in future, preferably randomized, studies.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography, a less painful procedure for tubal patency testing during fertility workup compared with (serial) hysterosalpingography: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is a less painful first line tubal patency test than serial hysterosalpingography (HSG). DESIGN: A two-center, prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: University hospital and teaching hospital. PATIENT(S): 40 subfertile women, ages 18 to 41 years, with an indication for tubal patency testing as part of the fertility workup according to the Dutch Nederlandse Vereniging voor Obsteterie & Gynaecologie-guidelines. INTERVENTION(S): Tubal patency testing by HyFoSy versus serial HSG. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores during tubal patency testing. RESULT(S): The median VAS score for pain perception during the HyFoSy procedure was 1.7 cm (interquartile range: 2.1) compared with 3.7 cm (interquartile range: 4.2) during HSG. The HyFoSy procedure also had a statistically significantly shorter procedure time compared with HSG, with a median of 5.0 minutes (interquartile range: 3.0) for HyFoSy versus 12.5 minutes (interquartile range: 16.0) for HSG. CONCLUSION(S): The HyFoSy procedure is a less painful and less time-consuming tubal patency test compared with HSG. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands National Trial Register NTR3457.