Transvaginal Sonography Post-Office Hysteroscopy as a Screening Tool for Tubal Patency: A Reliable and Feasible Technique in an Outpatient Setting.

OBJECTIVE: To determine feasibility and accuracy of post-hysteroscopic transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) measurement of pelvic fluid accumulation as a screening method for tubal patency (TP). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 85 patients who underwent uterine cavity assessment by office hysteroscopy at our university-affiliated fertility centre from November 2019 to October 2020. During the study period, two-dimensional (2D) TVUS was performed pre- and post-hysteroscopy to evaluate TP. Patient records were reviewed for demographics, diagnosis, and prior/subsequent TP testing. Predictive values for TP were calculated. RESULTS: Pelvic fluid accumulation post-hysteroscopy was found in 65.9% of patients (56). Accumulation of fluid was seen with the use of as little as 10-50 mL of saline. Using more fluid did not increase the likelihood of demonstrating TP (P = 0.17). A trend towards more false-negative results for TP was observed when less fluid was used (7.7% with 10-50 mL vs. 3.8% with 60-190 mL and 1.3% with 200-760 mL; P = 0.10). The positive predictive value (PPV) of TVUS post-hysteroscopy in comparison to known patency/occlusion was 100%; negative predictive value (NPV) was 33%; sensitivity was 82.8%; and specificity was 100%. Similar values were seen in a second analysis that included patients with highly suspected patent or occluded tubes (n = 60); presumed predictive values were: PPV 100%, NPV 42%, sensitivity 78.8%, and specificity 100%. The use of more fluid did not increase pain (P = 0.75). This finding remains after accounting for confounders (e.g., pre-medication, endometrial biopsy). CONCLUSION: TVUS pre- and post-hysteroscopy is feasible in an outpatient setting, and can serve as a reliable screening tool for TP. When hysteroscopy is performed and TP is not known, TVUS can be added for screening, potentially omitting the need for more invasive examinations. With limited non-urgent ambulatory services, it is of upmost importance to maximize information from a single procedure.

COVID-19 pandemic effect on early pregnancy: are miscarriage rates altered, in asymptomatic women?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic state on early, first-trimester pregnancies. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study conducted at a university-affiliated fertility center in Montreal, Quebec, since the COVID-19 shut down, March 13 until May 6, 2020. Included: all women who came for a first-trimester viability scan during the study period (Study group) and between March 1, 2019 and May 17, 2019, approximately one year prior (Control). The study population denied symptoms of COVID-19. We reviewed all first trimester scans. Early first-trimester pregnancy outcomes (Viable pregnancy, arrested pregnancy including biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy) were measured as total number and percentage. A multivariate analysis was performed to control for other potentially significant variables, as was a power analysis supporting sample size. RESULTS: 113 women came for a first-trimester viability scan in the study period, and 172 in the control period (5-11 weeks gestational age), mean maternal age 36.5 ± 4.5 and 37.2 ± 5.4 years (p = 0.28). Viable clinical pregnancy rate was not different between the two groups (76.1 vs. 80.2% in the pandemic and pre-pandemic groups p = 0.41). No significant difference was seen in the total number of arrested pregnancies (defined as the sum of biochemical, 1st trimester miscarriages, and blighted ova) (22.1 vs. 16.9% p = 0.32), or in each type of miscarriage. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic environment does not seem to affect early first-trimester miscarriage rates in asymptomatic patients.

Does the timing of cabergoline administration impact rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome?

OBJECTIVE: Does the timing of cabergoline administration impact the rate of mild/moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women with a GnRH agonist trigger? METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis of 285 in-vitro fertilization patients at risk of OHSS who received a GnRH agonist trigger from 2011 to 2019 at McGill University Health Centre. Group 1 (Trig, n=101) began taking cabergoline 0.5 mg orally for 7 days at the time of GnRH agonist trigger, while Group 2 (Retriev, n=184) started taking cabergoline on the day of oocyte retrieval. The rates of OHSS were then compared between the groups using analysis of variance and chi-square analysis, where appropriate. RESULTS: The baseline demographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. Trig appeared to be at a slightly higher risk of OHSS based on a significantly higher antral follicle count (20.2±4.2 vs. 19.0±4.3; P=0.02), higher number of stimulated follicles >10 mm at trigger (25.7±7.0 vs. 22.8±8.3, P=0.003), and higher peak serum E2 level (17,325±2,542 vs. 14,822±3,098; P=0.0001). The Trig group had lower rates of mild and moderate OHSS (24% vs. 36%; P=0.045). Neither group had any patients who developed severe OHSS. Trig had fewer patients presenting with pelvic free fluid (13% vs. 23%; P=0.03), lower hematocrit (37.8±4.8% vs. 40.5±4.2%; P=0.0001), higher albumin concentrations (30.4±2.7 vs. 29.5±2.0; P=0.01), and lower potassium concentrations (3.9±0.5 vs. 4.2±0.7; P=0.0002). CONCLUSION: Cabergoline at the time of trigger as compared to the time of collection should be investigated to assess its role in reducing the rates of mild/moderate OHSS.