Neurodevelopmental outcomes of school-age children conceived after hysterosalpingography with oil-based or water-based iodinated contrast: long-term follow-up of a nationwide randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does preconceptional exposure to oil-based iodinated contrast media during hysterosalpingography (HSG) impact children's neurodevelopment compared with exposure to water-based alternatives? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our study found no large-sized effects for neurodevelopment in children with preconceptional exposure to oil-based iodinated contrast media during HSG compared with water-based alternatives. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HSG is widely used as a diagnostic tool in the female fertility work-up. Tubal flushing with oil-based iodinated contrast has been shown to enhance fertility outcomes in couples with unexplained infertility, increasing the chances of pregnancy and live birth compared with water-based alternatives. However, oil-based contrast contains higher doses of iodine and has a longer half-life, and concerns exist that iodinated contrast media can affect women's iodine status and cause temporary (sub)clinical hypothyroidism in mothers and/or foetuses. Considering that thyroid hormones are vital to embryonal and foetal brain development, oil-based contrast media use could increase the risk of impaired neurodevelopment in children conceived shortly after HSG. Here we examine neurodevelopmental outcomes in school-aged children conceived after HSG. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a long-term follow-up of the H2Oil trial in which oil-based or water-based contrast was used during HSG (Netherlands; 2012-2014; NTR3270). Of 369 children born <6 months after HSG in the study, we contacted the mothers of 140 children who gave consent to be contacted for follow-up. The follow-up study took place from January to July 2022 (NCT05168228). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: The study included 69 children aged 6-9 years who were conceived after HSG with oil-based (n = 42) or water-based contrast (n = 27). The assessments targeted intelligence (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), neurocognitive outcomes (computerized neurocognitive tests), behavioural functioning (parent and teacher questionnaires), and academic performance. Linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and parental educational attainment were employed to compare groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: School-aged children born to mothers after oil-based contrast HSG did not significantly differ from children born to mothers after water-based contrast HSG, in regards to intelligence, neurocognitive functioning, behavioural functioning, or academic performance, with the exception of better performance for visuomotor integration functions in children exposed to oil-based contrast preconception. After exploratory correction for multiple comparisons, none of the group differences was statistically significant. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The small sample size of this follow-up study limited statistical power. This study provides evidence for the absence of large-sized differences between preconceptional exposure to the two contrast media types but does not rule out more subtle effects on neurodevelopment compared to naturally conceived children without preconceptional exposure to HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study contributes to our knowledge about the long-term effects of different types of iodinated contrast media used in fertility work-up, indicating that choosing oil-based over water-based iodinated contrast media is unlikely to have major effect on the long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of children conceived shortly after HSG. However, further research should focus on the overall safety of iodine exposure during HSG, comparing children conceived after HSG to those conceived naturally as both types of contrast contain high amounts of iodine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original H2Oil randomized controlled trial was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic hospitals now merged into the Amsterdam University Medical Centre. The current follow-up study (Neuro-H2Oil) is funded through a research grant awarded to the authors by the Amsterdam Reproduction & Development (AR&D) research institute. S.K. is funded by a AMC MD/PhD Scholarship from the Amsterdam UMC. S.K. reports holding voluntary roles in the civil society organizations Universities Allied for Essential Medicines and People's Health Movement. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. K.D. reports receiving travel and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy, travel support and research funding from Merck, consultancy for Organon and Norgine, and holding stock from ObsEva. The other authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05168228.

The effect of prior hysterosalpingo-foam sonography or hysterosalpingography on tubal patency: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) prior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) or HSG prior to HyFoSy affect visible tubal patency when compared HSG or HyFoSy alone? SUMMARY ANSWER: Undergoing either HyFoSy or HSG prior to tubal patency testing by the alternative method does not demonstrate a significant difference in visible tubal patency when compared to HyFoSy or HSG alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HyFoSy and HSG are two commonly used visual tubal patency tests with a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for evaluating tubal patency. These tests may also improve fertility, although the underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. One of the hypotheses points to a dislodgment of mucus plugs that may have disrupted the patency of the Fallopian tubes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled FOAM study, in which women underwent tubal patency testing by HyFoSy and HSG, randomized for order of the procedure. Participants either had HyFoSy first and then HSG, or vice versa. Here, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of tubal patency testing by HyFoSy or HSG prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method on visible tubal patency, compared to each method alone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Infertile women aged between 18 and 41 years scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible for participating in the FOAM study. Women with anovulatory cycles, endometriosis, or with a partner with male infertility were excluded. To evaluate the effect HyFoSy on tubal patency, we relied on HSG results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HSG in those who underwent and who did not undergo HyFoSy prior to their HSG (HyFoSy prior to HSG versus HSG alone). To evaluate the effect of HSG on tubal patency, we relied on HyFoSy results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HyFoSy in those who underwent and who did not undergo HSG prior to their HyFoSy (HSG prior to HyFoSy versus HyFoSy alone). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, we randomized 1160 women (576 underwent HyFoSy first followed by HSG, and 584 underwent HSG first followed by HyFoSy). Among the women randomized to HyFoSy prior to HSG, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HSG in 467/537 (87%) women, compared with 472/544 (87%) women who underwent HSG alone (risk difference 0.2%; 95% CI: -3.8% to 4.2%). Among the women randomized to HSG prior to HyFoSy, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HyFoSy in 394/471 (84%) women, compared with 428/486 (88%) women who underwent HyFoSy alone (risk difference -4.4%; 95% CI: -8.8% to 0.0%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results of this secondary analysis should be interpreted as exploratory and cannot be regarded as definitive evidence. Furthermore, it has to be noted that pregnancy outcomes were not considered in this analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Tubal patency testing by either HyFoSy or HSG, prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method does not significantly affect visible tubal patency, when compared to alternative method alone. This suggests that both methods may have comparable abilities to dislodge mucus plugs in the Fallopian tubes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data. H.R.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford University Press in the role of Deputy Editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board as an independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. M.v.W. is coordinating editor of Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology. B.W.J.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437) and research funding from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Organon and Merck KGaA, and travel support from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports holding stocks of ObsEva. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring and travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® hysterosalpingography: A prospective study on pregnancy and complication rates.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroscopic hysterosalpingography (HSG) with Lipiodol® is safe and has a therapeutic effect on fertility: transient in endometriosis-related infertility and sustained in unexplained infertility. Ultrasound is replacing fluoroscopy as the preferred imaging modality for HSG due to comfort and radiation safety (no ionising radiation). The safety of ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® HSG is uncertain. AIMS: Prospectively observe pregnancy and complication rates after ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® HSG. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A single-centre prospective study of women with unexplained infertility undergoing ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® uterine bathing and tubal flushing after tubal patency confirmed with ExEm® Foam HyFoSy (hysterosalpingo-foam-sonography). Pregnancy outcomes at six months and serum and urinary thyroid function at one, three and eight weeks were recorded. Pain scores were recorded during and immediately after HSG. Descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: Fifty-two participants were enrolled between July 2019 and April 2021, median age 33 years (range 21-45). Only 45 (87%, 45/52) completed the Lipiodol® HSG; 5/7 experienced intravasation during initial HyFoSy. Of 30 women at follow-up, 57% had biochemical (17/30, 95% CI 37%-75%), 53% clinical (16/30 95% CI 34%-72%) and 35% ongoing pregnancies (11/30, 95% CI 20%-56%). The rate of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) at two months was 41% (7/17). One intravasation event occurred during Lipiodol® HSG (2%, 1/45). Median pain score was 5/10 (range 0-9, interquartile range 2.5-7). No anaphylaxis, infection or oil embolism was observed. CONCLUSION: Outpatient ultrasound-guided Lipiodol® HSG was safe, with pregnancy rates comparable to previous studies of fluoroscopic guidance. Rates of intravasation and SCH were also similar, confirming the need to monitor thyroid function.

The effectiveness of immediate versus delayed tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in women with unexplained infertility (H2Oil-timing study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography leads to significantly more live births as compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography. However, it is unknown whether incorporating tubal flushing with oil-based contrast in the initial fertility work-up results to a reduced time to conception leading to live birth when compared to delayed tubal flushing that is performed six months after the initial fertility work-up. We also aim to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography versus no tubal flushing in the first six months of the study. METHODS: This study will be an investigator-initiated, open-label, international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a planned economic analysis alongside the study. Infertile women between 18 and 39 years of age, who have an ovulatory cycle, who are at low risk for tubal pathology and have been advised expectant management for at least six months (based on the Hunault prediction score) will be included in this study. Eligible women will be randomly allocated (1:1) to immediate tubal flushing (intervention) versus delayed tubal flushing (control group) by using web-based block randomization stratified per study center. The primary outcome is time to conception leading to live birth with conception within twelve months after randomization. We assess the cumulative conception rate at six and twelve months as two co-primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes include ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, number of complications, procedural pain score and cost-effectiveness. To demonstrate or refute a shorter time to pregnancy of three months with a power of 90%, a sample size of 554 women is calculated. DISCUSSION: The H2Oil-timing study will provide insight into whether tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography should be incorporated in the initial fertility work-up in women with unexplained infertility as a therapeutic procedure. If this multicenter RCT shows that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast incorporated in the initial fertility work-up reduces time to conception and is a cost-effective strategy, the results may lead to adjustments of (inter)national guidelines and change clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was retrospectively registered in International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (Main ID: EUCTR2018-004153-24-NL).

Lipiodol flushing under ultrasound guidance at time of hystero-salpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy): A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of female infertility can be attributed to tubal abnormalities. Assessment of fallopian tube patency forms a component of the basic assessment of infertility. Tubal patency can be checked through hysterosalpingogram (HSG) under radiologic guidance with oil- or water-based contrast medium (OBCM or WBCM), or hystero-salpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy) under ultrasound guidance with WBCM. Tubal flushing with OBCM has been shown to improve fertility rates. OBJECTIVES: To study the feasibility and tolerability of performing Lipiodol (ethiodised oil) flush concurrently with HyCoSy. To examine the in vivo sonographic visibility of Lipiodol vs normal saline. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study of patients with subfertility referred for Lipiodol flushing under ultrasound guidance between August 2017-September 2020 at six private ultrasound practices in Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: There were 412 patients who were referred for Lipiodol flushing. Of these, 86 patients did not have concurrent Lipiodol flush at HyCoSy performed due to strict exclusion criteria. Of the 326 patients who proceeded with Lipiodol flushing at HyCoSy, all cases were successful, with no cases of extravasation. There were no major complications. In vivo sonographic visualisation of Lipiodol was similar to that of the commonly used agitated 0.9% saline (n = 20; mean visibility score 4.3 ± 0.9 vs 4.0 ± 1.2). CONCLUSION: Our study has shown that Lipiodol flushing at time of HyCoSy as a single procedure is feasible and tolerable to patients. Flushing with Lipioidol during HyCoSy is likely as sonographically visible as 0.9% saline.

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.

Lipiodol visibility under ultrasound.

BACKGROUND: Lipiodol is an oil-based solution commonly used in hysterosalpingogram (HSG), but not hysterosalpingo contrast sonography (HyCoSy). In women with unexplained infertility, evidence suggests that tubal flushing with Lipiodol results in improved fertility post-procedure. We propose that Lipiodol can be visualised under ultrasound similar to commonly used saline, and hence utilised for HyCoSy, allowing the benefit of an oil-based tubal flushing to occur with HyCoSy. AIMS: To examine whether Lipiodol is visible sonographically, assess optimal agitated Lipiodol mix and ultrasound settings for visibility, and compare visibility to agitated saline, routinely used for HyCoSy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two separate sonographers with identical ultrasound machines and model pelvises recorded images with varying degrees of agitated Lipiodol and ultrasound settings, in addition to capturing images with no fluid and agitated saline. Each test was performed in quadruplicate and in random order. Images were read by 47 blinded reporters and visibility reported on a scale of one (not visible) to five (clearly visible). RESULTS: The mean visibility score for images captured where the Lipiodol sample was agitated five times prior to injection to allow the formation of air microbubbles, regardless of ultrasound setting, were higher than or not different from that for agitated saline (all P > 0.7 when not different, <0.001 when higher). CONCLUSIONS: Sonographic visualisation of agitated Lipiodol is similar or better than that of agitated saline. Lipiodol may therefore present a possibility for use with HyCoSy, with the added benefit of oil-based tubal flushing, avoiding the radiation exposure of HSG and concurrently providing pelvic soft-tissue evaluation.

Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does pain or volume of used contrast medium impact the effectiveness of oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG)? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women who report moderate to severe pain during HSG, the use of oil-based contrast resulted in more ongoing pregnancies compared to the use of water-based contrast, whereas in women who reported mild or no pain, no difference in ongoing pregnancies was found. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, the use of oil-based contrast results in more ongoing pregnancies within 6 months as compared to the use of water-based contrast. However, the underlying mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the H2Oil study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the therapeutic effect of oil- and water-based contrast at HSG. Here, we evaluated the impact of pain experienced at HSG and volume of used contrast media during HSG on ongoing pregnancy. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In a subset of 400 participating women, pain during HSG by means of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range: 0.0-10.0 cm) was reported, while in 512 women, we registered the volume of used contrast (in millilitres). We used logistic regression analyses to assess whether pain and volume of used contrast media modified the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy rates. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In 400 women in whom pain scores were reported, the overall median pain score was 5.0 (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.0-6.8) (oil group (n = 199) 4.8 (IQR 3.0-6.4); water group (n = 201) 5.0 (IQR 3.0-6.7); P-value 0.28). There was a significant interaction between pain (VAS ≤5 versus VAS ≥6) and the primary outcome ongoing pregnancy (P-value 0.047). In women experiencing pain (VAS ≥6), HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in better 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates compared to HSG with water-based contrast (49.4% versus 29.6%; RR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5), while in women with a pain score ≤5, 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the use of oil- (28.8%) versus water-based contrast (29.2%) (RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66-1.5). In the 512 women in whom we recorded contrast, median volume was 9.0 ml (IQR 5.7-15.0) in the oil group versus 8.0 ml (IQR 5.9-13.0) in the water group, respectively (P-value 0.72). Volume of used contrast was not found to modify the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy (P-value for interaction 0.23). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a post-hoc analysis that should be considered as hypothesis generating. The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women, younger than 39 years of age and with a low risk for tubal pathology. Therefore, our results should not be generalised to infertile women who do not share these features. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The underlying mechanism of the fertility-enhancing effect induced by HSG with the use of oil-based contrast remains unclear. However, these findings suggest a possible mechanistic pathway, that is increasing intrauterine pressure occurring prior to dislodging pregnancy hindering debris or mucus plugs from the proximal part of otherwise normal fallopian tubes. This information might help in the search of the underlying fertility-enhancing mechanism found by using oil-based contrast during HSG. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet. H.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers' fees from Ferring and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an 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 conflict of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The H2Oil study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR 3270). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 1 February 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 3 February 2012.

Effectiveness on fertility outcome of tubal flushing with different contrast media: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare, in women with infertility, the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium, water-based contrast medium or their combination, and no tubal flushing, and to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing on fertility outcome over time. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries, up to 25 September 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the following interventions with each other or with no intervention in women with infertility: tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium, tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium or additional tubal flushing with oil-based medium following diagnostic tubal flushing with water-based medium. The outcomes included clinical pregnancy, live birth, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 283 studies identified through the search, 14 RCTs reporting on 3852 women with infertility were included. Network meta-analysis showed that tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium was associated with higher odds of clinical pregnancy within 6 months after randomization and more subsequent live births compared with tubal flushing using water-based medium (odds ratio (OR), 1.67 (95% CI, 1.38-2.03), moderate certainty of evidence; and OR, 2.18 (95% CI, 1.30-3.65), low certainty of evidence, respectively) and compared with no intervention (OR, 2.28 (95% CI, 1.50-3.47), moderate certainty of evidence; and OR, 2.85 (95% CI, 1.41-5.74), low certainty of evidence, respectively). These results agreed with those of the pairwise meta-analysis. For clinical pregnancy within 6 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference between tubal flushing with water-based contrast medium and no intervention (OR, 1.36 (95% CI, 0.91-2.04), low certainty of evidence). For fertility outcomes after 6 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in any comparison (low to very low certainty of evidence). Compared with tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium, the use of oil-based contrast medium was associated with higher odds of asymptomatic intravasation (OR, 5.06 (95% CI, 2.29-11.18), moderate certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: In women with infertility undergoing fertility workup, tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium probably increases clinical pregnancy rates within 6 months after randomization and may increase subsequent live-birth rates, compared with tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium and compared with no intervention. Evidence on fertility outcomes beyond 6 months is inadequate to draw firm conclusions. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Eficacia sobre el resultado de fertilidad del lavado de trompas con diferentes medios de contraste: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis en red OBJETIVOS: Comparar, en mujeres con infertilidad, la efectividad y seguridad del lavado de trompas con un medio de contraste a base de aceite, un medio de contraste a base de agua o una combinación, y el no lavado de trompas, y evaluar la efectividad del lavado de trompas en el resultado de la fertilidad con el tiempo. MÉTODOS: Se realizó una revisión sistemática y un metaanálisis en red, mediante búsquedas en las bases de datos electrónicas MEDLINE, EMBASE y el Registro Central Cochrane de Ensayos Controlados, y en otros registros de ensayos, hasta el 25 de septiembre de 2018. Se incluyeron ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que compararon las siguientes intervenciones entre sí o con la no intervención en mujeres con infertilidad: lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de agua, lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de aceite o lavado de trompas adicional con un medio a base de aceite después de un lavado de trompas con un medio a base de agua. Los resultados incluyeron el embarazo confirmado ecográficamente, el nacimiento vivo, el embarazo en curso, el aborto espontáneo, el embarazo ectópico y los eventos adversos. RESULTADOS: De los 283 estudios identificados mediante la búsqueda, se incluyeron 14 ECA que informaron sobre 3852 mujeres con infertilidad. El metaanálisis en red mostró que el lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de aceite se asoció con mayores probabilidades de embarazo confirmado ecográficamente dentro de los seis meses posteriores a la aleatorización y más nacimientos vivos posteriores en comparación con el lavado de trompas con medio a base de agua (razón de momios [RM], 1,67; IC 95%: 1,38-2,03), certeza moderada de evidencia; y RM, 2,18 (IC 95%: 1,30-3,65), certeza baja de evidencia, respectivamente) y en comparación con la no intervención (RM, 2,28 (IC 95%: 1,50-3,47), certeza moderada de evidencia; y RM, 2,85 (IC 95%: 1,41-5,74), certeza baja de evidencia, respectivamente). Estos resultados coincidieron con los del metaanálisis por pares. No hubo evidencia suficiente de una diferencia entre el lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de agua y la no intervención para el embarazo clínico dentro de los seis meses (RM, 1,36 (IC 95%: 0,91-2,04); certeza baja de evidencia). Para los resultados de fertilidad después de los seis meses, no hubo evidencia suficiente de diferencias en cualquier comparación (certeza de evidencia baja a muy baja). En comparación con el lavado de trompas con un medio de contraste a base de agua, el uso de un medio de contraste a base de aceite se asoció con mayores probabilidades de intravasación asintomática (RM, 5,06 (IC 95%: 2,29-11,18), certeza moderada de evidencia). CONCLUSIONES: En las mujeres con infertilidad que se someten a un examen de fertilidad, el lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de aceite aumenta la probabilidad de las tasas de embarazo clínico dentro de los 6 meses posteriores a la aleatorización y puede aumentar las tasas posteriores de nacimientos vivos, en comparación con el lavado de trompas con medio de contraste a base de agua y en comparación con la no intervención. La evidencia sobre los resultados de fertilidad después de los seis meses es inadecuada para establecer conclusiones firmes. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Review of lipiodol treatment for infertility - an innovative treatment for endometriosis-related infertility?

A lipiodol hysterosalpingogram was the routine test for tubal patency as recently as the 1970s. Observational studies, then randomised controlled trials, provided evidence of a fertility enhancing effect of lipiodol. It has been found to improve fertility for women with normal tubal patency, particularly where the woman has a history of endometriosis. Previous successful treatment for infertility with lipiodol is a marker of further successful treatment for infertility in a repeat procedure. Whilst lipiodol is probably effective at flushing debris that could hinder fertility from fallopian tubes, it also exerts immunobiological effects in pelvic peritoneum and on the endometrium that could be responsible for fertility enhancement. Effects of lipiodol on the endometrium that might be important at the time of the implantation window are a reduced expression of osteopontin and an increased number of uterine natural killer cells postlipiodol. The effect of lipiodol uterine bathing for women with endometriosis, repeat in vitro fertilisation (IVF) implantation failure and other reproductive disorders merits further investigation. Lipiodol presents a new, simple, low invasive, inexpensive treatment option for endometriosis-related infertility and might have wider applications.

Enhancing Fertility in the Same Cycle: A Case Report on Effects of Hysterosalpingo-Foam Sonography (HyFoSy) for a Couple With Mild Infertility.

Fertility issues are becoming increasingly prevalent, leading many couples to seek fertility treatment at specialized centers. Infertility is a diverse clinical condition, with multiple potential etiologic factors and variable severity in its manifestation. Regardless of the underlying factors and severity, routine fertility assessment rarely differs between cases, with an essential step being fallopian tube patency assessment. Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) is the latest available diagnostic technique to assess this parameter, offering robust results, with reduced intra-procedural pain and equipment requirements, in the convenience of the office setting. However, apart from its diagnostic value, HyFoSy has also demonstrated a therapeutic tubal flushing effect, that may be the decisive factor for couples with mild infertility to spontaneously conceive. In this report, we present the case of a couple with mild infertility, who managed to spontaneously conceive after a HyFoSy examination, and in fact within the same cycle.

Alternatives to in vitro fertilization.

There have been concerns on the potential overuse of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in view of the lack of evidence on effectiveness in certain populations, potential short and long-term safety risks, and economic considerations. On the other hand, the use of alternatives to IVF seems to be underappreciated in clinical practice as well as research. In this review, we summarized the up-to-date evidence on the effectiveness, safety as well as cost-effectiveness of different alternatives to IVF, including expectant management, intrauterine insemination, tubal flushing, in vitro maturation as well as intravaginal culture. We also discussed the trend of IVF use over the last decade and the available tiers of service because of intravaginal culture, and revisited the roles of different alternatives to IVF in modern reproductive medicine from both clinical and research perspectives.

Factors Associated with a Post-Procedure Spontaneous Pregnancy after a Hysterosapingo-Foam-Sonography (HyFoSy): Results from a Multicenter Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Tubal patency testing constitutes an essential part of infertility work-up. Hysterosalpingo-foam-sonography (HyFoSy) is currently one of the best tests for assessing tubal patency. The objective of our study was to evaluate the post-procedure rate of spontaneous pregnancy among infertile women submitted for an HyFoSy exam with ExEm® foam and the factors associated with this. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, observational study performed at six Spanish centers for gynecologic sonography and human reproduction. From December 2015 to June 2021, 799 infertile women underwent HyFoSy registration consecutively. The patients' information was collected from their medical records. Multivariable regression analyses were performed, controlling for age, etiology, and time of sterility. The main outcome was to measure post-procedure spontaneous pregnancy rates and the factors associated with the achievement of pregnancy. RESULTS: 201 (26.5%) women got spontaneous conception (SC group), whereas 557 (73.5%) women did not get pregnant (non-spontaneous conception group, NSC). The median time for reaching SC after HyFoSy was 4 months (CI 95% 3.1-4.9), 18.9% of them occurring the same month of the procedure. Couples with less than 18 months of infertility were 93% more likely to get pregnant after HyFoSy (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.34-2.81; p < 0.001); SC were two times more frequent in women under 35 years with unexplained infertility (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.07-4.65; P0.033). CONCLUSION: After HyFoSy, one in four patients got pregnant within the next twelve months. Couples with shorter infertility time, unexplained infertility, and women under 35 years are more likely to achieve SC after HyFoSy.

Impact of genital Chlamydia trachomatis infection on reproductive outcomes among infertile women undergoing tubal flushing: a retrospective cohort at a fertility centre in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: The impact of current C. trachomatis on clinical pregnancy and live birth rates among women undergoing tubal flushing is largely unknown. This study aimed to investigate whether current female genital C. trachomatis infection affects the chance of achieving a clinical pregnancy and a live birth, among infertile women undergoing tubal flushing, at a fertility centre in Uganda. METHODS: A retrospective Cohort study at a peri-urban fertility centre. A total of 253 eligible women with tubal factor infertility, who underwent tubal flushing, were enrolled and categorised according to their exposure to current genital C. trachomatis infection. These women were followed up for a period of 12 months, with the primary outcome measure being clinical pregnancy and live birth. Secondary outcome measures included pregnancy loss and procedural related adverse events. RESULTS: Exposure to current genital C. trachomatis infection reduced chance of clinical pregnancy (adjusted relative risk 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-0.96) and a live birth (adjusted relative risk 0.37; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.95) after tubal flushing. Women with current C. trachomatis infection had an increased risk of adverse events (adjusted relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.34). However, current C. trachomatis infection did not affect the risk of spontaneous abortion and ectopic pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Current genital C. trachomatis infection in women with tubal factor infertility, undergoing tubal flushing, lowers their chance of pregnancy and live birth.

Preovulatory uterine flushing with saline as a treatment for unexplained infertility: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is the treatment of choice for unexplained infertility. Preovulatory uterine flushing could reduce intrauterine debris and inflammatory factors preventing pregnancy and constitute an alternative to IVF. Our objective is to assess the efficacy of preovulatory uterine flushing with physiological saline for the treatment of unexplained infertility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a randomised controlled trial based on consecutive women aged between 18 and 37 years consulting for unexplained infertility for at least 1 year. On the day of their luteinising hormone surge, 192 participants will be randomised in two equal groups to either receive 20 mL of physiological saline by an intrauterine catheter or 10 mL of saline intravaginally. We will assess relative risk of live birth (primary outcome), as well as pregnancy (secondary outcome) over one cycle of treatment. We will report the side effects, complications and acceptability of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project was approved by the Ethics committee of the Centre Hospitatlier Universitaire de Quebec (no 2015-1146). Uterine flushing is usually well tolerated by women and would constitute a simple, affordable and minimally invasive treatment for unexplained infertility. We plan to communicate the results of the review by presenting research abstracts at conferences and by publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02539290; Pre-results.