Fertility specialists' views, behavior, and attitudes towards the use of endometrial scratching in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial scratching (ES) or injury is intentional damage to the endometrium performed to improve reproductive outcomes for infertile women desiring pregnancy. Moreover, recent systematic reviews with meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials demonstrated that ES is not effective, data on the safety are limited, and it should not be recommended in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to assess the view and behavior towards ES among fertility specialists throughout infertility centers in Italy, and the relationship between these views and the attitudes towards the use of ES as an add-on in their commercial setting. METHODS: Online survey among infertility centers, affiliated to Italian Society of Human Reproduction (SIRU), was performed using a detailed questionnaire including 45 questions with the possibility to give "closed" multi-choice answers for 41 items and "open" answers for 4 items. Online data from the websites of the infertility centers resulting in affiliation with the specialists were also recorded and analyzed. The quality of information about ES given on infertility centers websites was assessed using a scoring matrix including 10 specific questions (scored from 0 to 2 points), and the possible scores ranged from 0 to 13 points ('excellent' if the score was 9 points or more, 'moderate' if the score was between 5 and 8, and 'poor' if it was 4 points or less). RESULTS: The response rate was of 60.6% (43 questionnaires / 71 infertility SIRU-affiliated centers). All included questionnaires were completed in their entirety. Most physicians (~ 70%) reported to offer ES to less than 10% of their patients. The procedure is mainly performed in the secretory phase (69.2%) using pipelle (61.5%), and usually in medical ambulatory (56.4%) before IVF cycles to improve implantation (71.8%) without drugs administration (e.g., pain drugs, antibiotics, anti-hemorrhagics, or others) before (76.8%) or after (64.1%) the procedure. Only a little proportion of infertility centers included in the analysis proposes formally the ES as an add-on procedure (9.3%), even if, when proposed, the full description of the indications, efficacy, safety, and costs is never addressed. However, the overall information quality of the websites was generally "poor" ranging from 3 to 8 and having a low total score (4.7 ± 1.6; mean ± standard deviation). CONCLUSIONS: In Italy, ES is a procedure still performed among fertility specialists for improving the implantation rate in IVF patients. Moreover, they have a poor attitude in proposing ES as an add-on in the commercial setting.

Rationale and design of two prospective, multicenter, observational studies on reproductive outcome in women with recurrent failures after spontaneous or assisted conception: OTTILIA and FIRST registries.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous pregnancy loss and implantation failure after assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are very common occurrences. Although 50-60% of all cases remains unexplained, various predisposing factors, including thrombophilias, have been identified. Thus, the potential benefit of a prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparins in improving outcomes has been often investigated over the years. However, the majority of studies are observational and results from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are inconclusive, probably due to heterogeneity and limited sample size. To cover these unmet needs and to have further data mainly based on the real-life clinical management, we designed these multicenter registries. METHODS: OTTILIA (Observational sTudy on antiThrombotic prevention in thrombophILIA and pregnancy loss) and FIRST (recurrent Failures in assIsted Reproductive Techniques) registries are two prospective, multicenter, observational studies to evaluate pregnancy or ART outcomes in consecutive women with previous reproductive failures after spontaneous or assisted conception, respectively. All enrolled women are observed from their first visit after positive pregnancy test (OTTILIA) or before commencing a new ART cycle (FIRST) until the end of pregnancy or ART procedure (negative pregnancy test/end of pregnancy, if successful cycle), respectively. Data are collected by means of questionnaires and recorded in a central database. Follow-up investigations are performed during hospital stay, routine clinical follow-up visits or telephone interviews. Primary outcome is live birth rate in the OTTILIA register and clinical pregnancy rate in the FIRST. DISCUSSION: Although RCTs are the 'gold standard' for evaluating treatment outcomes, we believe that our registries represent a valid alternative in improving knowledge on mechanisms involved in reproductive failures and supporting future clinical decisions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02385461 , retrospectively registered 5 March 2015 (OTTILIA); NCT02685800 , registered 10 February 2016 (FIRST).

Multicenter observational study on slow-cooling oocyte cryopreservation: clinical outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of oocyte cryopreservation by a single slow-cooling protocol involving sucrose (0.2 mol/L) in the freezing solution. DESIGN: Observational comparison of the clinical outcome in fresh and frozen thawed cycles. SETTING: Public and private IVF centers. PATIENT(S): Infertile couples undergoing IVF treatment. INTERVENTION(S): Use of a maximum three oocytes in fresh cycles, as established by local law, and cryopreservation and later use of surplus oocytes. Likewise fresh cycles, maximum three thawed oocytes were used per cycle. All thawed oocytes were microinjected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Embryologic and clinical parameters of fresh and thawed cycles. RESULT(S): Two thousand forty-six patients underwent 2,209 oocyte retrievals involving oocyte cryopreservation. Overall, the survival rate of thawed oocytes was 55.8%. In 940 thaw cycles, the mean numbers of inseminated oocytes and fertilization rates were significantly decreased vs. fresh cycles outcomes (2.6 ± 0.7 vs. 2.9 ± 0.2 and 72.5% vs. 78.3%, respectively), as were the rates of implantation (10.1% vs. 15.4%), pregnancy rates per transfer (17.0% vs. 27.9%), and pregnancy rates per cycle (13.7% vs. 26.2%). Differences in clinical outcome were found among centers. A pregnancy rate per thawing cycle above 14% was achieved by most clinics. Fifty-seven retrievals involving oocyte cryopreservation achieved a pregnancy after fresh embryo replacement. Implantation and pregnancy rates per embryo transfer and per thawing cycles were 17.5%, 28.6%, and 24.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION(S): Under the conditions tested, the clinical outcome of oocyte slow-cooling cryopreservation is reduced compared with fresh cycles. Nevertheless, in cases of inapplicability of embryo cryopreservation, oocyte cryopreservation should be offered to patients with surplus oocytes.