Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71978064.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials. SETTING: Sixteen UK fertility units. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2 and previous trauma to the endometrium. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs. RESULTS: One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22). LIMITATIONS: A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The endometrial scratch is a simple procedure that involves 'scratching' the lining of the womb (the endometrium). Several small studies have shown that undertaking this before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle may improve live birth rates; however, other studies have contradicted this. This large study was carried out to confirm whether or not having an endometrial scratch before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle would increase the number of women having a live birth compared with those having 'usual' in vitro fertilisation treatment (known as the 'control' group). We collected information about pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, pain during the procedure and costs of treatment to find out if there were any meaningful differences. A total of 1048 women aged between 18 and 37 years were randomly allocated to the two groups, so participants had a 50% chance of having the endometrial scratch. Women were followed up throughout their pregnancy to ascertain the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation cycle. Although the live birth rate was 1.5% higher in the endometrial scratch group (38.6%) than in the control group (37.1%), the difference was not large enough to show any benefit of having the procedure. Other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the procedure was safe and tolerable. We found that the cost of treatment was, on average, £316 per participant higher in the group that received endometrial scratch than in the control group; the difference was not large enough to show that receiving endometrial scratch was more cost-effective. We combined the results of this trial with those of previous trials that looked to answer a similar question, and found that, overall, the endometrial scratch procedure does not enhance the chances of achieving a live birth. We conclude that endometrial scratch before first-time in vitro fertilisation does not improve the outcome of treatment, and we recommend that this procedure is not undertaken prior to a first cycle of in vitro fertilisation.

Experiences of trial participants and site staff of participating in and running a large randomised trial within fertility (the endometrial scratch trial): a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of endometrial scratch (ES) trial participants and site staff of trial recruitment and participation, in order to improve the experience of participants in future trials. DESIGN: Qualitative study of a subset of participants in the ES randomised controlled trial and a subset of trial site staff. SETTING: A purposeful sample of 9 of the 16 UK Fertility Units that participated in the trial. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of 27 trial participants and 7 site staff. RESULTS: Participants were largely happy with the recruitment practices, however, some were overwhelmed with the amount of information received. Interviewees had positive preconceptions regarding the possible effect of the ES on the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle, which often originated from their own internet research and seemed to be exacerbated by how site staff described the intervention. Some participants appeared to not understand that receiving the ES could potentially reduce their chances of a successful IVF outcome. Those randomised to the control arm discussed feeling discontent; site staff developed mechanisms of dealing with this. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of equipoise in both study participants and the recruiting site staff led to trial participants having positive preconceptions of the potential impact of the ES on their upcoming IVF cycle. Trial participants may not have understood the potential harms of participating in a randomised trial. The trial information sheet did not clearly state this; further research should assess how such information should be presented to potential participants, to proportionately present the level of risk, but to not unduly discourage participation. The amount of information fertility patients require about a research study should also be investigated, in order to avoid participants feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information they receive prior to starting IVF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23800982.