Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is currently being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy or a similar technique, and is a common, simple, gynaecological procedure that has an established safety profile. However, it is also known to be associated with a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with low complexity fertility treatments such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and ovulation induction (OI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury in subfertile women and couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gyanecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, ISI Web of Knowledge and ClinicalTrials.gov; as well as reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. We performed the searches from inception to 31 October 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without OI) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality using GRADE methodology. The primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and bleeding secondary to the procedure. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials, which included a total of 1512 women, met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review. Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. In seven studies the women were undergoing IUI and in two studies the women were trying to conceive from sexual intercourse. Eight trials compared intentional endometrial injury with no injury/placebo procedure; of these two trials also compared intentional endometrial injury in the cycle prior to IUI with intentional endometrial injury in the IUI cycle. One trial compared higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injury. Intentional endometrial injury vs. either no intervention or a sham procedureWe are uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low (risk ratio (RR) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 3.15; six RCTs, 950 participants; I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). When we restricted the analysis to only studies at low risk of bias the effect was imprecise and the evidence remained of very low quality (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.82; one RCT, 105 participants; very low quality evidence). Endometrial injury may improve clinical pregnancy rates however the evidence is of low quality (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.58; eight RCTs, 1180 participants; I² statistic = 0%, low quality evidence).The average pain experienced by participants undergoing endometrial injury was 6/10 on a zero-10 visual analogue scale (VAS)(standard deviation = 1.5). However, only one study reported this outcome. Higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injuryWhen we compared hysteroscopy with endometrial injury to hysteroscopy alone, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; one RCT, 332 participants; low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.01; one RCT, 332 participants, low quality evidence). This study did not report the primary outcome of pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injuryWhen endometrial injury was performed in the cycle prior to IUI compared to the same cycle as the IUI, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.16, one RCT, 176 participants; very low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.36; two RCTs, 276 participants; very low quality evidence). Neither of these studies reported the primary outcome of pain during the procedure.In all three comparisons there was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. No studies reported bleeding secondary to the procedure. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the probability of pregnancy and live birth/ongoing pregnancy in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution as we graded the quality of the evidence as either low or very low. The main reasons we downgraded the quality of the evidence were most included studies were at a high risk of bias and had an overall low level of precision. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise internal bias are required to confirm or refute these findings.

Timed intercourse for couples trying to conceive.

BACKGROUND: Fertility problems are very common, as subfertility affects about 10% to 15% of couples trying to conceive. There are many factors that may impact a couple's ability to conceive and one of these may be incorrect timing of intercourse. Conception is only possible from approximately five days before up to several hours after ovulation. Therefore, to be effective, intercourse must take place during this fertile period. 'Timed intercourse' is the practice of prospectively identifying ovulation and, thus, the fertile period to increase the likelihood of conception. Whilst timed intercourse may increase conception rates and reduce unnecessary intervention and costs, there may be associated adverse aspects including time consumption and stress. Ovulation prediction methods used for timing intercourse include urinary hormone measurement (luteinizing hormone (LH), estrogen), tracking basal body temperatures, cervical mucus investigation, calendar charting and ultrasonography. This review considered the evidence from randomised controlled trials for the use of timed intercourse on positive pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and risks of ovulation prediction methods for timing intercourse on conception in couples trying to conceive. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following sources to identify relevant randomised controlled trials, the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, LILACS, Web of Knowledge, the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Register Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Furthermore, we manually searched the references of relevant articles. The search was not restricted by language or publication status. The last search was on 5 August 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing timed intercourse versus intercourse without ovulation prediction or comparing different methods of ovulation prediction for timing intercourse against each other in couples trying to conceive. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted the data. The primary review outcomes were cumulative live birth and adverse events (such as quality of life, depression and stress). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, pregnancy (clinical or self-reported pregnancy, not yet confirmed by ultrasound) and time to conception. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs (2840 women or couples) comparing timed intercourse versus intercourse without ovulation prediction. Unfortunately one large study (n = 1453) reporting live birth and pregnancy had not published outcome data by randomised group and therefore could not be analysed. Consequently, four RCTs (n = 1387) were included in the meta-analysis. The evidence was of low to very low quality. Main limitations for downgrading the evidence included imprecision, lack of reporting clinically relevant outcomes and the high risk of publication bias.One study reported live birth, but the sample size was too small to draw any relevant conclusions on the effect of timed intercourse (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.41, 1 RCT, n = 17, very low quality).One study reported stress as an adverse event. There was no evidence of a difference in levels of stress (mean difference 1.98, 95 CI% -0.87 to 4.83, 1 RCT, n = 77, low level evidence). No other studies reported adverse events.Two studies reported clinical pregnancy. There was no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.12, 2 RCTs, n = 177, I(2) = 0%, low level evidence). This suggested that if the chance of a clinical pregnancy following intercourse without ovulation prediction is assumed to be 16%, the chance of success following timed intercourse would be between 9% and 33%.Four studies reported pregnancy rate (clinical or self-reported pregnancy). Timed intercourse was associated with higher pregnancy rates compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction in couples trying to conceive (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.71, 4 RCTs, n = 1387, I(2) = 0%, very low level evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a pregnancy following intercourse without ovulation prediction is assumed to be 13%, the chance following timed intercourse would be between 14% and 23%. Subgroup analysis by duration of subfertility showed no difference in effect between couples trying to conceive for < 12 months versus couples trying for ≥ 12 months. One trial reported time to conception data and showed no evidence of a difference in time to conception. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are insufficient data available to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of timed intercourse for the outcomes of live birth, adverse events and clinical pregnancy. Timed intercourse may improve pregnancy rates (clinical or self-reported pregnancy, not yet confirmed by ultrasound) compared to intercourse without ovulation prediction. The quality of this evidence is low to very low and therefore findings should be regarded with caution. There is a high risk of publication bias, as one large study remains unpublished 8 years after recruitment finished. Further research is required, reporting clinically relevant outcomes (live birth, clinical pregnancy rates and adverse effects), to determine if timed intercourse is safe and effective in couples trying to conceive.