Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF)

The effect of assisted reproductive technology on postpartum bleeding: hormonal cycle frozen embryo transfer might increase blood loss

BACKGROUND

Among assisted reproductive technologies, frozen thawed embryo transfer (FET) is associated with increased blood loss at delivery. Anesthesiologists need to be aware of new factors that affect postpartum blood loss. This study investigated whether FET cycles with or without hormonal support affect the amount of postpartum bleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted for delivery at a single university hospital between January 2015 and December 2018. Patients were divided into no-assisted reproductive technology (No-ART), hormonal cycle FET (HC-FET) and natural cycle FET (NC-FET) group. The primary outcome was the amount of blood loss after delivery (median [interquartile range]), which was compared among the three groups. Multiple regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors affecting blood loss.

RESULTS

Between 2015 and 2018, 3187 women delivered neonates. In vaginal delivery, postpartum blood loss in the HC-FET group (1060 [830] g) was significantly greater than in the NC-FET group (650 [485] g, P = 0.001) and in the No-ART group (590 [420] g P < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that HC-FET (P < 0.001) was one of the independent factors for the amount of bleeding. In cesarean delivery, the HC-FET group had more blood loss than the No-ART group (910 [676] g vs. 784 [524] g, P = 0.039). However, HC-FET was not an independent factor for postpartum blood loss.

CONCLUSIONS

The HC-FET group had more blood loss than the No-ART group for both vaginal and cesarean deliveries. Furthermore, HC-FET was an independent factor that increased postpartum blood loss in vaginal deliveries.

Hysteroscopic Endometrial Fundal Incision in Oocyte Recipients before Embryo Transfer May Improve Reproductive Outcomes: A Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Induced endometrial injury is a technique described that have positive impact on implantation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether hysteroscopic endometrial fundal incision (EFI) in oocyte recipients before embryo transfer increases pregnancy and live birth rates or not.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective study was conducted between 2014 and 2019 at an in vitro fertilization (IVF) unit in Greece. As part of the protocol, hysteroscopy and EFI were offered to all the egg recipients and the outcomes compared with those from an older cohort from the same Unit not undergoing hysteroscopy.

RESULTS

In total, 332 egg recipients participated in the study; 114 of them underwent EFI prior to embryo transfer. Both groups were similar in terms of age, years of infertility, duration of hormone replacement treatment (HRT) and number of blastocysts transferred. In the EFI group, minor anomalies were detected and treated in 6.1% (n=7) of the participants. Moreover, pregnancy test was positive in 73.7% of the women in the hysteroscopy group compared to 57.8% in the nonhysteroscopy group (P=0.004). Live birth rate was also higher (56.1 vs. 42.2%, P=0.016) in the EFI group compared to the non-hysteroscopy one.

CONCLUSION

Apart from the obvious benefit of recognizing obscured anomalies, requiring surgical correction, it appears that in oocyte recipients prior to embryo transfer, EFI might improve uterine receptivity and reproductive outcomes.

The role of endometrial scratching prior to in vitro fertilization: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

RESEARCH QUESTION

To evaluate the role of endometrial scratching performed prior to an embryo transfer cycle on the probability of pregnancy compared to placebo/sham or no intervention.

DESIGN

A computerized literature (using a specific search strategy) search was performed across the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, COCHRANE CENTRAL, SCOPUS and WEB OF SCIENCE up to June 2023 in order to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of endometrial scratching prior to an embryo transfer cycle on the probability of pregnancy, expressed either as live birth, ongoing pregnancy or clinical pregnancy (in order of significance) compared to placebo/sham or no intervention. Data were pooled using random-effects or fixed-effects model, depending on the presence or not of heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the population studied in each RCT, as well as on the timing and method of endometrial biopsy. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADEPro tool.

RESULTS

The probability of live birth was significantly higher in embryo transfer cycles after endometrial scratching as compared to placebo/sham or no intervention (relative risk-RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.20; heterogeneity: I2=46.30%, p<0.001, 28 studies; low certainty). The probability of ongoing pregnancy was not significantly difference between the two groups (RR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.98-1.18; heterogeneity: I2=27.44%, p=0.15, 11 studies; low certainty). The probability of clinical pregnancy was significantly higher in embryo transfer cycles after endometrial scratching as compared to placebo/sham or no intervention (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.06-1.18; heterogeneity: I2=47.48%, p<0.001, 37 studies; low certainty). A subgroup analysis was performed based on the time that endometrial scratching was carried out. When endometrial scratching was performed during the menstrual cycle prior to the embryo transfer cycle a significantly higher probability of live birth was present (RR: 1.18, 95% CI:1.09-1.27; heterogeneity: I2=39.72%, p<0.001, 21 studies; moderate certainty). On the contrary, no effect on the probability of live birth was present when endometrial injury was performed during the embryo transfer cycle (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.67-1.15; heterogeneity: I2=65.18%, p=0.33, 5 studies; low certainty). In addition, a higher probability of live birth was only present in women with previous IVF failures (RR: 1.35, 95% CI: 1.20-1.53; heterogeneity: I2=0%, p<0.001, 13 studies; moderate certainty) with evidence suggesting that the more IVF failures the more likely endometrial scratching to be beneficial (p=0.004). The number of times endometrial scratching was performed, as well as the type of instrument used did not appear to affect the probability of live birth.

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial scratching during the menstrual cycle prior to an embryo transfer cycle can lead to a higher probability of live birth in patients with previous IVF failures.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023433538 (18 Jun 2023).

The impact of endometrial scratch performed in mid-luteal phase on the endometrium whole genome transcriptomic profiles in following menstrual cycle

The value of endometrial scratch in women with recurrent embryo transfer has been controversial. Endometrial scratch is often performed in the mid-luteal phase of the cycle preceding embryo transfer but there is little scientific evidence if it affects the whole genome transcriptomic profile of peri-implantation endometrium in the following cycle. A prospective longitudinal cohort study was conducted in a university assisted reproductive unit. A total of eight women with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) were included. Each participant had endometrial biopsy twice, first biopsy on day LH + 7 in natural cycle and second on day LH + 7 of the following cycle. R package was used to identify differentially expressed genes between the sample and enriched gene ontology. However, the paired sample showed no significant difference, neither known endometrial receptive gene set nor other genes, before and after the endometrial scratch. It suggests that endometrial scratch performed during previous mid-luteal phase did not affect the transcriptomic profiles of endometrium on day LH + 7 in women with RIF.

Evaluation of the effect of endometrial scratch by hysteroscopic scissors on frozen embryo transfer outcomes: A historical cohort study

Background

Endometrial scratch (ES) has been suggested to improve assisted reproductive techniques success rates by investigating implantation failure.

Objective

In this study, we evaluated the effect of ES on the outcomes of frozen embryo transfer (FET) in women with at least 2 failed embryo transfer cycles.

Materials and Methods

In this historical cohort study, medical data of 236 infertile women who underwent in-vitro fertilization-FET at Ebne-sina Infertility Center, Tehran, Iran, from January 2015-December 2021 was extracted from their medical records. Based on having ES before FET, they were assigned to either the scratch (n = 118) or the no-scratch group (n = 118). We compared these groups regarding pregnancy rates and outcomes.

Results

The demographic characteristics were similar in both groups regarding weight, body mass index, the number of previous embryo transfers, and the duration of infertility. However, the scratch group had a slightly higher mean age (32.31 vs. 29.96 yr, p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was observed between groups regarding pregnancy rate (p = 0.89). No significant association was observed between scratch, infertility duration, the number of previous FET attempts, and the likelihood of pregnancy in a logistic regression model. No major complications were observed.

Conclusion

Hysteroscopic endometrial scratching with scissors probably has no effect on FET outcomes, including pregnancy or live birth rates.

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.

Endometrial Injury Upregulates Expression of Receptivity Genes in Women with Implantation Failure

BACKGROUND

Homeobox genes A10 (HOXA10) and A11 (HOXA11), members of the abdominal B gene family, are responsible for embryonic survival and implantation. This study was planned to investigate whether endometrial injury alters the expression of both transcripts in women with implantation failure.

METHODS

A total of 54 women with implantation failure were divided into two equal groups as experimental (scratching) and sham (no scratching). Participants in the scratching group were exposed to endometrial injury in the mid-luteal phase, and those in the sham group were exposed to endometrial flushing. The scratching group, but not the sham group, underwent prior endometrial sampling. A second endometrial sampling was performed on the scratching group in the mid-luteal phase of the following cycle. The mRNA and protein levels of the HOXA10 and 11 transcripts were determined in endometrial samples collected before and after injury/flushing. Participants in each group underwent IVF/ET in the cycle after the second endometrial sampling.

RESULTS

Endometrial injury caused a 60.1-fold (p < 0.01) increase in HOXA10 mRNA and a 9.0-fold increase in HOXA11 mRNA (p < 0.02). Injury resulted in a significant increase in both HOXA10 (p < 0.001) and HOXA11 protein expression (p < 0.003). There was no significant change in HOXA10 and 11 mRNA expressions after flushing. Clinical pregnancy, live birth, and miscarriage rates of the both groups were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial injury increases homeobox transcript expression at both mRNA and protein levels.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI).

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 RCTs (3703 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Luteal phase support for women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse

BACKGROUND

Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment  We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen  We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment  No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone  The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment  The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).

Peri-implantation glucocorticoid administration for assisted reproductive technology cycles

BACKGROUND

The use of peri-implantation glucocorticoids has been advocated to improve embryo implantation during assistive reproductive technology (ART) cycles such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). It has been proposed that glucocorticoids may improve the intrauterine environment by acting as immunomodulators to reduce the uterine natural killer (NK) cell count and activity, normalising the cytokine expression profile in the endometrium and by suppression of endometrial inflammation.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of glucocorticoids versus no glucocorticoids administered around the time of anticipated implantation in women undergoing IVF or ICSI.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, CENTRAL (now also containing output from two trial registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE and Embase, on 20 December 2021, together with reference checking, contact with experts in the field and relevant conference proceedings to identify additional studies. This review is an update of the review first published in  2007 and last updated in 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of supplementary systemic administration of glucocorticoids in the peri-implantation period with a placebo or no glucocorticoids in subfertile women undergoing IVF or ICSI were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate and multiple pregnancy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs (2232 couples analysed). We are uncertain whether glucocorticoids improved live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 2.71; 2 RCTs, n = 366; I² = 7%; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no glucocorticoids/placebo is assumed to be 9%, the chance following glucocorticoids would be between 6% and 21%. We are also uncertain whether there was a difference between peri-implantation glucocorticoids on multiple pregnancy rates per couple (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.20; 4 RCTs, n = 504; I² = 53%; very low-certainty evidence). The I² of 53% may represent moderate statistical heterogeneity and results have to be interpreted with caution. With regard to pregnancy rates, we are uncertain whether there was a difference between ongoing pregnancy rates after glucocorticoids versus no glucocorticoids/placebo (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.76; 3 RCTs, n = 476; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy rates after glucocorticoids versus no glucocorticoids/placebo (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; 13 RCTs, n = 1967; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no glucocorticoids/placebo is assumed to be 25%, the chance following glucocorticoids would be between 24% and 32%. Furthermore, we are also uncertain whether peri-implantation glucocorticoids influenced miscarriage rates per couple (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.87; 6 RCTs, n = 821; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence), the incidence of ectopic pregnancies per couple (OR 2.28, 95% CI 0.33 to 15.62; 3 RCTs, n = 320; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per couple (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.90; 3 RCTs, n = 370; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence) compared to no glucocorticoids/placebo. The evidence was very low to low certainty: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there was insufficient evidence that administration of peri-implantation glucocorticoids in IVF/ICSI cycles influenced clinical outcomes. These findings were limited to the routine use of glucocorticoids in subfertile women undergoing IVF or ICSI.

Oxytocin antagonists for assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Embryo transfer (ET) is a crucial step of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment, and involves placing the embryo(s) in the woman's uterus. There is a negative association between endometrial wave-like activity (contractile activities) at the time of ET and clinical pregnancy, but no specific treatment is currently used in clinical practice to counteract their effects. Oxytocin is a hormone produced by the hypothalamus and released by the posterior pituitary. Its main role involves generating uterine contractions during and after childbirth. Atosiban is the best known oxytocin antagonist (and is also a vasopressin antagonist), and it is commonly used to delay premature labour by halting uterine contractions. Other oxytocin antagonists include barusiban, nolasiban, epelsiban, and retosiban. Administration of oxytocin antagonists around the time of ET has been proposed as a means to reduce uterine contractions that may interfere with embryo implantation. The intervention involves administering the medication before, during, or after the ET (or a combination).

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oxytocin antagonists around the time of ET in women undergoing assisted reproduction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in March 2021; and checked references and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of oxytocin antagonists for women undergoing ET, compared with the non-use of this intervention, the use of placebo, or the use of another similar drug.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage; secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and other adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies (including one comprising three separate trials, 3733 women analysed in total) investigating the role of three different oxytocin antagonists administered intravenously (atosiban), subcutaneously (barusiban), or orally (nolasiban). We found very low- to high-certainty evidence: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious or very serious imprecision. Intravenous atosiban versus normal saline or no intervention We are uncertain of the effect of intravenous atosiban on live birth rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.24; 1 RCT, N = 800; low-certainty evidence). In a clinic with a live birth rate of 38% per cycle, the use of intravenous atosiban would be associated with a live birth rate ranging from 33.4% to 47.1%. We are uncertain whether intravenous atosiban influences miscarriage rate (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.56; 5 RCTs, N = 1424; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). In a clinic with a miscarriage rate of 7.2% per cycle, the use of intravenous atosiban would be associated with a miscarriage rate ranging from 5.4% to 11.2%. Intravenous atosiban may increase clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.89; 7 RCTs, N = 1646; I² = 69%; low-certainty evidence), and we are uncertain whether multiple or ectopic pregnancy and other complication rates were influenced by the use of intravenous atosiban (very low-certainty evidence). Subcutaneous barusiban versus placebo One study investigated barusiban, but did not report on live birth or miscarriage. We are uncertain whether subcutaneous barusiban influences clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.35; 1 RCT, N = 255; very low-certainty evidence). Trialists reported more mild to moderate injection site reactions with barusiban than with placebo, but there was no difference in severe reactions. They reported no serious drug reactions; and comparable neonatal outcome between groups. Oral nolasiban versus placebo Nolasiban does not increase live birth rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.28; 3 RCTs, N = 1832; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). In a clinic with a live birth rate of 33% per cycle, the use of oral nolasiban would be associated with a live birth rate ranging from 32.7% to 42.2%. We are uncertain of the effect of oral nolasiban on miscarriage rate (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.88; 3 RCTs, N = 1832; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). In a clinic with a miscarriage rate of 1.5% per cycle, the use of oral nolasiban would be associated with a miscarriage rate ranging from 1.1% to 4.3%. Oral nolasiban improves clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.30; 3 RCTs, N = 1832; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence), and probably does not increase multiple or ectopic pregnancy, or other complication rates (moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether intravenous atosiban improves pregnancy outcomes for women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. This conclusion is based on currently available data from seven RCTs, which provided very low- to low-certainty evidence across studies. We could draw no clear conclusions about subcutaneous barusiban, based on limited data from one RCT. Further large well-designed RCTs reporting on live births and adverse clinical outcomes are still required to clarify the exact role of atosiban and barusiban before ET. Oral nolasiban appears to improve clinical pregnancy rate but not live birth rate, with an uncertain effect on miscarriage and adverse events. This conclusion is based on a phased study comprising three trials that provided low- to high-certainty evidence. Further large, well-designed RCTs, reporting on live births and adverse clinical outcomes, should focus on identifying the subgroups of women who are likely to benefit from this intervention.

History of Recurrent Implantation Failure is Associated With the Incidence of Adverse Perinatal Outcomes in Singleton Live Births Following Frozen-Thawed Embryo Transfer Cycles

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether patients with a history of recurrent implantation failure (RIF) are associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton live births following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

METHODS

This study analyzed the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of patients with and without a history of RIF who underwent FET cycles in a single reproductive center between January 2017 and October 2020. A total of 1,100 women with singleton live births beyond 28 weeks of gestation were included. The primary outcome measures were perinatal outcomes, especially gestational age, birthweight, preterm birth (PTB), large for gestational age (LGA), small for gestational age (SGA), congenital malformation rates, and premature rupture of the membranes (PROM). Multiple logistic regression was used to establish relationships between RIF and adverse perinatal outcomes after adjusting for relevant baseline demographics and cycle characteristics.

RESULTS

The RIF group showed a preferred transfer of two embryos and cleavage embryos compared with the control group (P <0.05). Regarding perinatal outcomes in singleton deliveries, women with RIF had increased rates of LBW (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.027; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.025-4.009), PTB (aOR 1.785; 95% CI, 1.050-3.036), and PROM (aOR 2.259; 95% CI, 1.142-4.467). The incidence of congenital malformations was similar between the two groups (4.1% vs. 2.4%; P = 0.759). Furthermore, multiple intrauterine procedures were associated with a statistically significant increased risk of PROM in RIF patients (aOR 1.537; 95% CI, 1.105-2.137).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with a history of RIF were associated with an increased risk of LBW, PTB, and PROM in singleton live births after FET cycles. In addition, multiple intrauterine procedures were independent risk factors for PROM.