What is the fertility-enhancing effect of tubal flushing? A hypothesis article.

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. Impact StatementWhat 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.

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

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

Pain scores during oocyte retrieval for IVF/ICSI: A retrospective cohort study comparing three different analgesia protocols.

OBJECTIVE: Oocyte retrieval is a painful, but essential element of IVF/ICSI. Evidence for the best method of analgesia is lacking. In the Netherlands, the three most common analgesia protocols entail administration of oral analgesics, intravenous opioids, and intramuscular opioids. The aim of this study was to compare these methods. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted at three clinics. Clinic one provided oral analgesics (1000 mg paracetamol and 500 mg naproxen). The main component of analgesia at clinic two was opioids intravenously (50-100 µg fentanyl), and at clinic three, this was opioids intramuscularly (0.01 mg/kg alfentanil). Intraprocedural pain was registered on an 11-point scale. Univariate analyses were performed to identify factors significantly associated with pain scores. A mixed linear model was used to uncover mean pain scores per clinic. RESULTS: In total, 2,127 oocyte retrievals were included. Pain scores were lower in older women; scores decreased 0.06 points per year (95%-confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.08). Per extra follicle, scores were 0.05 points higher (95%-CI: 0.03-0.06). Endometriosis resulted in 0.45-point higher scores (95%-CI: 0.01-0.88). Primary subfertility resulted in a 0.36-point increase in scores (95%-CI: 0.15-0.56). Nulliparous women had a 0.41-point higher score than multiparous women (95%-CI: 0.19-0.63). These effects were mostly similar in all clinics. Mean pain scores were 5.6 at clinic number 1 (95%-CI: 5.3-5.8), 5.1 at clinic number 2 (95%-CI: 4.9-5.3), and 3.9 at clinic number 3 (95%-CI: 3.8-4.1). CONCLUSION: The lowest pain scores were achieved in the clinic that used intramuscular administration of alfentanil, followed by intravenous fentanyl and, finally, non-sedative oral analgesics. Significant correlations between patient characteristics and pain scores were identified.

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

STUDY QUESTION: What is the incidence of complications after hysterosalpingography (HSG) using oil-based contrast versus water-based contrast? SUMMARY ANSWER: Among 5165 women undergoing HSG, the most frequently reported complication after HSG with oil- and water-based contrast was intravasation of contrast medium (4.8% versus 1.3%, respectively), which was without further consequences, and pulmonary embolization or death did not occur. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: An HSG with oil-based contrast increases pregnancy rates in women with unexplained infertility. However, there have been some concerns regarding complications, including the risks of intravasation of the contrast medium, oil embolism and infection. Here, we present the incidence of complications after HSG with different types of contrast media used in the Netherlands in the year 2017. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: In January 2018, an electronic survey was sent to all 73 clinics in the Netherlands that perform HSG. The survey consisted of 12 questions addressing the number of HSGs performed in 2017, the amount and type of contrast medium used, the occurrence of post-procedural complications and what their clinical consequences were. Non-responding clinics were sent multiple reminders. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: We calculated the incidence of the complications and reported on their clinical consequences. Furthermore, we examined the average amount of contrast used as well as the administration of prophylactic antibiotics. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The response rate was 96% (67/70) (during the study, one site closed and was not included while two clinics no longer performed HSGs). In the 67 clinics, 3289 HSGs with oil-based contrast and 1876 HSGs with water-based contrast were performed in 2017. The median amount of contrast used was 8.0 ml (interquartile range (IQR) 7.0-10.0) for oil-based contrast and 10.0 ml for water-based contrast (IQR 10.0-10.0). Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered in 61% (41/67) of the clinics. Intravasation occurred in 4.8% of the HSGs performed with oil-based contrast and in 1.3% of the HSGs with water-based contrast (relative risk (RR), 3.6; CI, 2.4-5.4). Pulmonary embolism or death was not reported. Pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) occurred in 0.3% of the HSGs performed with oil-based contrast versus 0.4% with water-based contrast. PID occurred in 0.3% of the HSGs in clinics using antibiotic prophylaxis and 0.2% in clinics not using antibiotic prophylaxis. Allergic reactions were reported in one HSG performed with oil-based contrast (0.03%) compared with two HSGs performed with water-based contrast (0.1%). Anaphylactic reactions did not occur. The overall complication rate was 5.1% in the clinics that used oil-based contrast versus 1.8% in the clinics that used water-based contrast (RR, 2.8; CI, 1.9-4.0; P-value, <0.0001). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Half of the clinics did not routinely register complications, and the incidence of the complications in their clinic was based on the recall of the clinician. Estimated complication rates in the clinics with and without systematic registration did not significantly differ. The survey asked about the frequency of intravasation but no classification system is being used in daily practice, which may create differences in reporting. There was no standard screening of post-HSG thyroid function for the mother and the foetus. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In this nationwide cohort study, the complication rates after HSG were low. Intravasation occurred more frequently with the use of oil-based contrast compared with water-based contrast but did not lead to any problems or symptoms in any of the women. We therefore conclude that safety concerns should not be a reason to deny the use of oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility. The data also support that fluoroscopy appears to be an essential safety measure during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was partly funded by Guerbet, France. I.R. reports receiving travel fee for presenting at the Congress of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2019 from Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker's fee as well as research grants from Guerbet. K.D. reports receiving travel and speaker's fee from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research grants from Merck KGaA and Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N19.056.

Different methods of pain relief for IVF and ICSI oocyte retrieval - A Dutch survey.

OBJECTIVE: Which analgesia methods are used during oocyte retrieval in the Netherlands? STUDYDESIGN: In April 2017, an online survey containing questions on the analgesia protocol used for IVF/ICSI oocyte retrieval was sent to all clinics in the Netherlands that perform oocyte retrievals. RESULTS: The response rate was 97%. We uncovered the large variety of medication protocols used for pain relief during oocyte retrieval in the Netherlands. Based on the main component of the given analgesia, we distinguished the three most frequently used analgesia protocols: intravenously (i.v.) administered opioids, intramuscularly (i.m) administered opioids, and non-sedative oral analgesics. Aside from analgesia, 61% provided anxiolysis with a benzodiazepine. Nearly half of the clinics registered pain scores. The vital functions were monitored at all clinics administering opioids i.v., but at none of the clinics administering opioids i.m. CONCLUSIONS: A wide variety of analgesia protocols are used. The three most frequently used are i.v. administered opioids, i.m. administered opioids, and non-sedative oral analgesics. The variety of analgesia protocols is not desirable in the context of good clinical practice, and considering the risks of combining opioids and benzodiazepines. Monitoring of vital functions was only performed after administration of i.v. medication. A comparison of the pain scores could be a first step in finding the optimal method of analgesia, thereby forming the basis of guidelines for analgesia during oocyte retrieval.