Vaginal Dinoprostone in Reducing Pain Perception During Diagnostic Office Hysteroscopy in Postmenopausal Women: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of vaginal dinoprostone in reducing pain perception during diagnostic office hysteroscopy (OH) in postmenopausal women. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Postmenopausal patients scheduled for OH. INTERVENTIONS: Eligible participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the dinoprostone and placebo groups. The severity of pain was assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0, no pain to 10, worst pain during OH and 30 minutes after OH. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The difference in the intensity of pain using the VAS score during the procedure. One hundred women (50 in each arm) were included in the study. The mean VAS score during OH was significantly lower in the dinoprostone group compared with the placebo group (3.9 ± 0.8 vs 5.6 ± 0.7; p <.001). The passage of the hysteroscope through the cervical canal was easier in the dinoprostone group (62.4 ± 9.5 vs 42.8 ± 10.8; p <.001). The 2 groups were comparable in terms of the duration of the procedure (p = .91) and the rate of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Vaginal dinoprostone is effective in relieving pain during diagnostic OH in postmenopausal women with few adverse effects.

Misoprostol Prior to Diagnostic Office Hysteroscopy in the Subgroup of Patients with No Risk Factors for Cervical Stenosis: A Randomized Double Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of vaginal misoprostol in minimizing the pain perceived by patients with no risk factors for cervical stenosis (i.e., parous women of reproductive age who have no history of cesarean section or cervical surgery) during diagnostic office hysteroscopy. METHODS: A total of 100 patients with no risk factors for cervical stenosis were randomized to the misoprostol group (n = 50) or the placebo group (n = 50). In the misoprostol group, 2 misoprostol tablets (400 µg) were administered vaginally 12 h before office hysteroscopy. In the placebo group, 2 placebo tablets were administered. The patients rated the intensity of pain perceived during the procedure and at 30 min after the procedure with the use of a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). The hysteroscopists also scored the difficulty of hysteroscope insertion into the uterine cavity with the use of a 100 mm VAS. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between both groups in the VAS pain scores during or at 30 min after the procedure (28.3 ± 13.58 vs. 30.42 ± 15.13 and 11.1 ± 10.23 vs. 13.32 ± 11.12, respectively). The difficulty of hysteroscope insertion into the uterine cavity was comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: Misoprostol administration prior to diagnostic office hysteroscopy appears to have no beneficial role in the subgroup of patients with no risk factors for cervical stenosis.

GnRH antagonist rescue protocol combined with cabergoline versus cabergoline alone in the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of antagonist rescue protocol (replacing GnRH agonist with GnRH antagonist and reducing the dose of gonadotropins) combined with cabergoline versus cabergoline alone in the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in patients pretreated with GnRH agonist long protocol who were at high risk for OHSS. METHODS: Two hundred and thirty six patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to the cabergoline group or the antagonist rescue combined with cabergoline group. Both groups received oral cabergoline (0.5 mg/day) for eight days beginning on the day of HCG administration. In the antagonist rescue combined with cabergoline group, when the leading follicle reached 16 mm, GnRH agonist (triptorelin) was replaced with GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix acetate) and the dose of HP-uFSH was reduced to 75 IU/day. HCG (5,000 IU/I.M) was administered when the serum estradiol level dropped below 3500 pg/ml. The study was open label and the outcome assessors (laboratory staff and the doctor who performed oocyte retrieval) were blind to treatment allocation. RESULTS: The incidence of moderate/severe OHSS was significantly lower in the antagonist rescue combined with cabergoline group [5.08 % Vs 13.56 %, P value =0.025, OR = 0.342, 95 % CI, 0.129-0.906]. Four cycles were cancelled in the cabergoline group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the number of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, high quality embryos and fertilization rate. Moreover, the implantation and pregnancy rates were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: GnRH antagonist rescue protocol combined with cabergoline is more effective than cabergoline alone in the prevention of OHSS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial.gov ( NCT02461875 ).