Endometrial scratching performed in the non-transfer cycle and outcome of assisted reproduction: a randomized controlled trial

Genetically predicted circulating immune cells and cytokines reveal the causal role of immune factors on female infertility: a two-sample mendelian randomization study

OBJECTIVES

Previous studies suggested that immune factors may play critical roles in female infertility, but their causal links remain unclear. To address this gap, this study employs the Mendelian randomization (MR) to delineate the causal association between circulating immune factors and female infertility.

METHODS

This study employed summary-level data from three genome-wide association studies (GWAS) encompassing 731 peripheral immune cell signatures, 41 circulating cytokines, and five female infertility phenotypes to reveal the causal relationship between immune factors and female infertility. Causalities of exposure-outcome pairs were explored mainly using two-sample MR, and comprehensive sensitivity analyses were deployed to validate the reliability of the results. Multi-variable Mendelian randomization (MVMR) was further employed to examine the potential mediating effects between significant exposures.

RESULTS

Following false discovery rate (FDR) correction and sensitivity analyses, univariable Mendelian randomization identified distinct causal immune signatures across infertility subtypes. Peripheral levels of Naive CD8br %CD8br, MIP1B and IL17 were causally associated with general female infertility, and higher circulating MIP1B level decreased the risk of ovarian infertility. Furthermore, peripheral levels of CD80 on monocyte and MIP1B were causally associated with a higher risk of tubal infertility, three peripheral immune cell features (CD86 + myeloid DC AC, HLA DR + NK %NK, CD16 on CD14- CD16 + monocyte) were causal for uterine factor infertility, and three cytokines (MIP1B, IL18, IL17) were genetic causes of cervical infertility, vaginal infertility, other or unspecified origin infertility (FIOTHNAS). MVMR further revealed that MIP1B's effects on general female infertility and FIOTHNAS were substantially attenuated upon adjusting for circulating levels of IL17 and IL18.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight that immune response contributes to female infertility risk through subtype-specific mechanisms, providing clues for following clinical research and treatment.

Endometrial scratching and intralipid treatment-no general recommendations

Objectives

Endometrial scratching (ES) and/or intravenous intralipid therapy (in cases of increased uterine natural killer cells, uNKs) are still conducted in several fertility centers as "add-on" treatments in patients undergoing ART, although convincing evidence for beneficial effects is lacking.

Study design

In this retrospective study, associations between ES treatment or additional intralipid therapy and pregnancy and live birth rates of 1,546 patients undergoing 2,821 IVF-/ICSI-treatment cycles with fresh or frozen embryo transfers in a German fertility-center between 1st January 2014 and 31th May 2017 were analyzed.

Results

Overall pregnancy and live birth rates for all 2,821 treatment cycles (468 cycles with ES) were 32.8% and 23.5%. There were no statistically significant differences in pregnancy or live birth rates between first treatment cycles with and without ES (p = 0.915 and p = 0.577) or between second cycles following an unsuccessful first cycle with and without ES (p = 0.752 and p = 0.623). These results were confirmed using multivariable generalized estimating equations (GEE) models accounting for non-independency of multiple treatment cycles per patients that included all cycles and showed no significant effect of ES on pregnancy (p = 0.449) or live birth rates (p = 0.976). Likewise, a GEE model revealed no significant effect of intralipid treatment on pregnancy (p = 0.926) and live birth rates (p = 0.727).

Conclusions

Our results reveal no evidence that ES increases the pregnancy or live birth rates in women undergoing their first or further IVF cycle with fresh or frozen embryo transfer. Intralipid treatment was also not beneficial. Even if patients explicitly ask for it, these procedures are not recommended outside of clinical studies.

Subtle changes in perivascular endometrial mesenchymal stem cells after local endometrial injury in recurrent implantation failure

Improvements in reproductive techniques have resulted in the live birth rates from IVF procedures increasing from 5% to approximately 30% in recent decades but has plateaued since. Emerging preclinical and clinical data implicates endometrial receptivity deficiencies in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF) as the predominant factor hindering successful implantation. Mechanisms on how local endometrial injury (LEI) improves implantation rates in patients with RIF are currently unknown. We hypothesized that LEI may influence perivascular endometrial mesenchymal stem/progenitor cells (eMSCs) which are thought to regenerate the stromal vascular component of the functional layer every month. Here, we assessed the effect of LEI on the proportion and function of eMSCs present in consecutive LEI biopsies. Consecutive paired mid-luteal phase endometrial biopsies obtained from patients with RIF were digested to single cells and the proportion of SUSD2-expressing cells determined. Growth kinetics and decidualization were compared between the consecutive LEI samples. A mid-luteal LEI altered the decidualization capacity of SUSD2⁺ eMSCs in women with RIF, but not their proportion or clonogenicity. With the potential of LEI to improve IVF outcomes in women with RIF, additional investigations are needed to understand the impact of the altered decidualization response in eMSCs.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials.

SETTING

Sixteen UK fertility units.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m² and previous trauma to the endometrium.

INTERVENTIONS

Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs.

RESULTS

One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22).

LIMITATIONS

A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

TNF-α Regulated Endometrial Stroma Secretome Promotes Trophoblast Invasion

Successful implantation requires the coordinated migration and invasion of trophoblast cells from out of the blastocyst and into the endometrium. This process relies on signals produced by cells in the maternal endometrium. However, the relative contribution of stroma cells remains unclear. The study of human implantation has major technical limitations, therefore the need of in vitro models to elucidate the molecular mechanisms. Using a recently described 3D in vitro models we evaluated the interaction between trophoblasts and human endometrial stroma cells (hESC), we assessed the process of trophoblast migration and invasion in the presence of stroma derived factors. We demonstrate that hESC promotes trophoblast invasion through the generation of an inflammatory environment modulated by TNF-α. We also show the role of stromal derived IL-17 as a promoter of trophoblast migration through the induction of essential genes that confer invasive capacity to cells of the trophectoderm. In conclusion, we describe the characterization of a cellular inflammatory network that may be important for blastocyst implantation. Our findings provide a new insight into the complexity of the implantation process and reveal the importance of inflammation for embryo implantation.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure prior to first-time IVF, with or without ICSI

STUDY QUESTION

What is the clinical-effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch (ES) procedure compared to no ES, prior to usual first time in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment?

SUMMARY ANSWER

ES was safe but did not improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF cycle, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

ES is an ‘add-on’ treatment that is available to women undergoing a first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, despite a lack of evidence to support its use.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This pragmatic, superiority, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial involving 1048 women assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety of the ES procedure prior to first time IVF, with or without ICSI, between July 2016 and October 2019.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Participants aged 18–37 years undergoing their first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, were recruited from 16 UK fertility clinics and randomised (1:1) by a web-based system with restricted access rights that concealed allocation. Stratified block randomisation was used to allocate participants to TAU or ES in the mid-luteal phase followed by usual IVF with or without ICSI treatment. The primary outcome was live birth after completing 24 weeks gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In total, 1048 women randomised to TAU (n = 525) and ES (n = 523) were available for intention to treat analysis. In the ES group, 453 (86.6%) received the ES procedure. IVF, with or without ICSI, was received in 494 (94.1%) and 497 (95.0%) of ES and TAU participants respectively. Live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the TAU and 38.6% (202/523) in the ES: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% CI −4.4% to 7.4%, P = 0.621). There were no statistical differences in secondary outcomes. Adverse events were comparable across groups.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

A sham ES procedure was not undertaken in the control group, however, we do not believe this would have influenced the results as objective fertility outcomes were used.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the largest trial that is adequately powered to assess the impact of ES on women undergoing their first cycle of IVF. ES was safe, but did not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF or ICSI cycle. We recommend that ES is not undertaken in this population.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Stephen Walters is an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator (2018 to present) and was a member of the following during the project: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Trials and Evaluation Committee (2011–2017), NIHR HTA Commissioning Strategy Group (2012 to 2017); NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Committee (2020 to present); NIHR Pre doctoral Fellowship Committee (2019 to present). Dr. Martins da Silva reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and is Associate editor of Human Reproduction and Editorial Board member of Reproduction and Fertility. Dr. Bhide reports grants from Bart's Charity and grants and non-financial support from Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN number: ISRCTN23800982.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

31 May 2016

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

04 July 2016

Is Endometrial Scratching Beneficial for Patients Undergoing a Donor-Egg Cycle with or without Previous Implantation Failures? Results of a Post-Hoc Analysis of an RCT

Endometrial scratching (ES) has been proposed as a useful technique to improve outcomes in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, particularly in patients with previous implantation failures. Our objective was to determine if patients undergoing egg-donor IVF cycles had better live birth rates after ES, according to their previous implantation failures. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, and multiple pregnancy rate. We analysed the results of 352 patients included in the Endoscratch Trial (NCT03108157). A total of 209 were patients with one or no previous implantation failures (105 with an ES done in the previous cycle, group A1, and 104 without ES, group B1), and 143 were patients with at least two previous failed implantations (71 patients with ES, group A2, and 72 without ES, group B2). We found an improvement in pregnancy rates (62.9% in group A1 vs. 55.8% in group B1 vs. 70.4% in group A2 vs. 76.4% in group B2, p = 0.028) in patients with at least two previous implantation failures, but this difference was not statistically different when we compared clinical pregnancy rates (59.1% vs. 51.0% vs. 64.8% vs. 68.1% in groups A1, B1, A2 and B2, respectively, p = 0.104) and live birth rates (52.4% vs. 43.3% vs. 57.8% vs. 55.6% in groups A1, B1, A2 and B2, respectively, p = 0.218). According to these results, we conclude that there is no evidence to recommend ES in egg-donor IVF cycles, regardless of the number of previous failed cycles.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF)

BACKGROUND

Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in the process of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury (also known as endometrial scratching), defined as intentional damage to the endometrium, can increase the chance of pregnancy in women undergoing IVF.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and frozen embryo transfer.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2020 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and two trial registries. We also checked the reference sections of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF, versus no intervention or a sham procedure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two independent review authors screened studies, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required. Due to the high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, the primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at a low risk of bias for selection bias and other bias. Sensitivity analysis was then performed including all studies. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage.

MAIN RESULTS

Endometrial injury versus control (no procedure or a sham procedure) A total of 37 studies (8786 women) were included in this comparison. Most studies performed endometrial injury by pipelle biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle before the IVF cycle. The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and included eight studies. The effect of endometrial injury on live birth is unclear as the result is consistent with no effect, or a small reduction, or an improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I² = 15%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth with IVF is usually 27%, then the chance when using endometrial injury would be somewhere between < 27% and 32%. Similarly, the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy is unclear (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy from IVF is normally 32%, then the chance when using endometrial injury before IVF is between 31% and 37%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy due to high risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity. Endometrial injury probably results in little to no difference in chance of miscarriage (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), and this result was similar in the sensitivity analysis that included all studies. The result suggests that if the chance of miscarriage with IVF is usually 6.0%, then when using endometrial injury it would be somewhere between 4.2% and 6.8%. Endometrial injury was associated with mild to moderate pain (approximately 4 out of 10), and was generally associated with some minimal bleeding. The evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and therefore all primary analyses were graded as moderate certainty. Higher versus lower degree of injury Only one small study was included in this comparison (participants = 129), which compared endometrial injury using two different instruments in the cycle prior to the IVF cycle: a pipelle catheter and a Shepard catheter. This trial was excluded from the primary analysis due to risk of bias. In the sensitivity analysis, all outcomes reported for this study were graded as very-low certainty due to risk of bias, and as such we were not able to interpret the study results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effect of endometrial injury on live birth and clinical pregnancy among women undergoing IVF is unclear. The results of the meta-analyses are consistent with an increased chance, no effect and a small reduction in these outcomes. We are therefore uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the chance of live birth or clinical pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. Endometrial injury does not appear to affect the chance of miscarriage. It is a somewhat painful procedure associated with a small amount of bleeding. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the routine use of endometrial injury for women undergoing IVF.

The Addition of Endometrial Injury to Freeze-All Strategy in Women with Repeated Implantation Failures

(1) Background: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) after IVF remains a challenging topic for fertility specialists and a frustrating reality for patients with infertility. Various approaches have been investigated and applied towards the improvement of clinical outcomes. Through a nonrandomized clinical trial, we evaluated the effect of the combination of hysteroscopic endometrial injury and the freeze-all technique on pregnancy parameters in a cohort of RIF patients; (2) Methods: The study group comprised of 30 patients with RIF that underwent a hysteroscopic endometrial injury prior to a frozen embryo transfer cycle; another 30 patients with RIF, comprising the control group, underwent a standard frozen cycle with no adjuvant treatment before. Live birth comprised the primary outcome. Logistic and Poisson regression analyses were implemented to reveal potential independent predictors for all outcomes. (3) Results: Live birth rates were similar between groups (8/30 vs. 3/30, p = 0.0876). Biochemical and clinical pregnancy and miscarriages were also independent of the procedure (p = 0.7812, p = 0.3436 and p = 0.1213, respectively). The only confounding factor that contributed to biochemical pregnancy was the number of retrieved oocytes (0.1618 ± 0.0819, p = 0.0481); (4) Conclusions: The addition of endometrial injury to the freeze-all strategy in infertile women with RIF does not significantly improve pregnancy rates, including live birth. A properly conducted RCT with adequate sample size could give a robust answer.

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 or to a higher/lower degree.

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 23 RCTs (4035 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). Higher versus lower degree of intentional endometrial injury Evidence was insufficient to show whether there is a difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 332 participants; low-quality evidence) between hysteroscopy with endometrial injury and hysteroscopy alone. Evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy with hysteroscopy alone is 10%, then the chance with hysteroscopy with endometrial injury would be 7% to 24%. This study did not report the primary outcomes of live birth and pain during the procedure. 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.

Factors related to infertility in Brazil and their relationship with success rates after assisted reproduction treatment: an integrative review

This integrative review evaluated the most commonly diagnosed causes of infertility in men and women in Brazil, as well as the medically assisted reproduction technologies regularly employed in these cases. We searched in four electronic databases (PubMed, including Medline; Scopus; Web of Science and LILACS), and two grey literature (Google Scholar and OpenGrey), guided by the focused question: "What are the main factors responsible for male and female infertility in Brazil, and what are its relationships with success rates after assisted reproduction treatment?". We included interventional or observational studies, without limitation by language or year of publication. Our searches in the electronic indexers recovered 1,119 articles, and after analyzing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 27 articles composed the body of analysis for this review. We grouped the studies into four themes: factors responsible for male and female infertility, assisted reproductive technologies (ART) used in the infertility treatment, assisted reproduction procedures, and clinical predictors of success rates in ART. Despite the scarcity of studies analyzing the association between infertility and assisted reproductive technologies in Brazil, it was possible to infer that the most prevalent infertility cause in women was endometriosis, while in men it was azoospermia. The most widely assisted reproductive technology applied in the country is the intracytoplasmic injection of spermatozoa (ICSI), ensuring better success rates in the treatment of infertility for men and women.

Endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI cycle-outcomes of a randomised controlled trial (SCRaTCH)

STUDY QUESTION

Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between -0.7% and +9.9%.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96-1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between -0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71-2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38-1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between -1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports 'other' from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, 'other' from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

31 July 2015.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

26 January 2016.

Intrauterine infusion of povidone-iodine: Its effect on the endometrium and subsequent fertility in postpartum dairy cows

This study aimed to describe the duration of inflammation after intrauterine infusion of polyvinylpyrrolidone-iodine (povidone-iodine, PVP-I), determine the effect of PVP-I infusion on the subsequent fertility, and evaluate the histopathology of the endometrium in dairy cows. In Experiment 1, 120 lactating clinically healthy Holstein-Friesian cows at 5 weeks postpartum (W5) were equally divided into three groups: intrauterine infusion of 2% PVP-I (PVP), saline (SAL), and no treatment (NTX). Endometrial cytology was performed daily from D0 (W5) to D7 to determine the percentage of polymorphonuclear cells (PMN%) in 44 of the 120 cows. All cows received timed artificial insemination at D17. In Experiment 2, 25 cows were randomly classified into sacrifice at 24 hr or 48 hr after 2% PVP-I infusion (PVP24 and PVP48), and 24, 48, 72, or 96 hr after SAL infusion (SAL24; SAL48; SAL72; SAL96), or no treatment (NTX). Histopathology was performed on the uterus of each cow. In Experiment 1, PMN% was greater in PVP (P<0.05) than in SAL and NTX, on D1, but decreased to a level similar to that of the other groups by D2. Conception rate was higher (P<0.05) in PVP cows compared to SAL and NTX cows. In Experiment 2, stratified columnar epithelium in the uterus disappeared in PVP24 and SAL24. The epithelium was regenerated in PVP48, SAL72, and SAL96, but not in SAL48. In conclusion, the results of the study suggest that PVP-I induces transient uterine inflammation, promotes regeneration of endometrial epithelial cells and improves fertility.

Endometrial "Scratching" An update and overview of current research

About one in every six couples is affected by sterility. Assisted reproduction procedures are currently the treatment of choice for a number of patients who desire children. Many causes of sterility can be overcome with the aid of in vitro fertilization, but successful implantation of the embryos is the major limiting factor. Failure of implantation may occur repetitively. In the treatment of sterility, many approaches have been used to overcome the barrier of implantation failure and improve the chances of successful nidation. Scratching the endometrium prior to embryo transfer has been suggested as one means of enhancing the likelihood of implantation. The current literature was examined to investigate if there was any possible benefit from endometrial scratching. The studies were divided according to whether the women suffered from recurrent implantation failure or not. In summary, it was found that unselected subfertile women generally benefit less from endometrial scratching, but scratching appears to be successful in women who have experienced repeated implantation failure. Although the heterogeneous body of data on the subject deserves further clarification. The latest data presented at “European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology” 2018 in Barcelona suggested that the method should be abandoned.

Endometrial scratch vs no intervention in egg donation cycles: the ENDOSCRATCH trial protocol

Background

The effects of endometrial scratching (ES) on embryo implantation have been studied for many years. Several studies have shown better outcomes when performed on patients undergoing intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, but many other reports have not been able to find these differences. As far as cycles with donor eggs are concerned, reported evidence is scarce. Our aim in this trial is to determine if ES is useful for those patients undergoing IVF cycles with donor eggs, in order to assure a greater homogeneity in embryo quality and endometrial preparation.

Methods

This single centre randomized controlled trial will include patients undergoing an egg donation cycle, meeting the inclusion criteria and who accept to participate in the study. Once informed consent is signed, patients will be randomly allocated to the study arm (group A) and then receive ES in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to embryo transfer, or the control arm (group B) without any intervention. All cycle data will be collected and analyzed to obtain the clinical pregnancy and the live birth rates in the two groups.

Discussion

Several studies have tried to determine the effectiveness of an ES in IVF cycles, but it is still unclear due to the heterogeneity of these reports. The aim of this study is to determine if there are differences in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate in egg donor cycles, when comparing an ES performed in the preceding luteal phase versus no intervention, given that embryo quality and endometrial preparation protocols will be comparable.

Trial registration

Ethical approval of version 2.0 of this trial was obtained on the 13th January 2017. It was retrospectively registered on the 5th April 2017 as the ENDOSCRATCH Trial (NCT03108157) in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE, ASRM and CUME definitions: association with infertility and miscarriage, cost and warnings for women and healthcare systems

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the differences in frequency of diagnosis of septate uterus using three different definitions and determine whether these differences are significant in clinical practice, and to examine the association between diagnosis of septate uterus, using each of the three definitions, and infertility and/or previous miscarriage as well as the cost of allocation to surgery.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of data from a prospective study of 261 consecutive women of reproductive age attending a private clinic focused on the diagnosis and treatment of congenital uterine malformations. Reanalysis of the datasets was performed according to three different means of defining septate uterus: following the recommendations of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), a 2016 update of those of the American Fertility Society from 1988 (ASRM-2016: internal fundal indentation depth ≥ 1.5 cm, angle of internal indentation < 90° and external indentation depth < 1 cm); following the recommendations of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology/European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESHRE/ESGE), published in 2013 and reaffirmed in 2016 (ESHRE/ESGE-2016: internal fundal/uterine indentation depth > 50% of uterine-wall thickness and external indentation depth < 50% of uterine-wall thickness, with uterine-wall thickness measured above interostial/intercornual line); and using a definition published last year which was based on the decision made most often by a group of experts (Congenital Uterine Malformation by Experts; CUME) (CUME-2018: internal fundal indentation depth ≥ 1 cm and external fundal indentation depth < 1 cm). We compared the rate of diagnosis of septate uterus using each of these three definitions and, for each, we estimated the association between the diagnosis and infertility and/or previous miscarriage, and anticipated the costs associated with their implementation using a guesstimation method.

RESULTS

Although 32.6% (85/261) of the subjects met the criteria for one of the three definitions of septate uterus, only 2.7% (7/261) of them were defined as having septate uterus according to all three definitions. We diagnosed significantly more cases of septate uterus using ESHRE/ESGE-2016 than using ASRM-2016 (31% vs 5%, relative risk (RR) = 6.7, P < 0.0001) or CUME-2018 (31% vs 12%, RR = 2.6, P < 0.0001) criteria. We also observed frequent cases that could not be classified definitively by ASRM-2016 (gray zone: neither normal/arcuate nor septate; 6.5%). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in the prevalence of septate uterus in women with vs those without infertility according to ASRM-2016 (5% vs 4%), ESHRE/ESGE-2016 (35% vs 28%) or CUME-2018 (11% vs 12%). Septate uterus was diagnosed significantly more frequently in women with vs those without previous miscarriage according to ASRM-2016 (11% vs 3%; P = 0.04) and CUME-2018 (22 vs 10%; P = 0.04), but not according to ESHRE/ESGE-2016 (42% vs 28%; P = 0.8) criteria. Our calculations showed that global costs to the healthcare system would be highly dependent on the criteria used in the clinical setting to define septate uterus, with the costs associated with the ESHRE/ESGE-2016 definition potentially being an extra US$ 100-200 billion over 5 years in comparison to ASRM-2016 and CUME-2018 definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE-2016, ASRM-2016 and CUME-2018 definitions differs considerably. An important limitation of the ASRM classification, which needs to be addressed, is the high proportion of unclassifiable cases originally named, by us, the 'gray zone'. The high rate of overdiagnosis of septate uterus according to ESHRE/ESGE-2016 may lead to unnecessary surgery and therefore unnecessary risk in these women and may impose a considerable financial burden on healthcare systems. Efforts to define clinically meaningful and universally applicable criteria for the diagnosis of septate uterus should be encouraged. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Endometrial scratching prior to IVF; does it help and for whom? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

What is the effect of endometrial scratching in patients with or without prior failed ART cycles on live birth (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

It remains unclear if endometrial scratching improves the chance of pregnancy and, if so, for whom.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Endometrial scratching is hypothesized to improve embryo implantation in ART. Multiple studies have been published, but it remains unclear if endometrial scratching actually improves pregnancy rates and, if so, for which patients.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

For this review, a systematic search for published articles on endometrial scratching and ART was performed on 12 February 2018, in Pubmed, Embase and the Cochrane Library.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated endometrial scratching in the cycle prior to the stimulation cycle and reported CPR or LBR were included. RCTs investigating the effect of scratching during the stimulation cycle, or prior to cryo-thaw cycles were excluded. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The effect of scratching was assessed for three different patient groups: patients with no prior IVF/ICSI treatment (Group 0), patients with one failed full IVF/ICSI cycle, including cryo-thaw cycles (Group 1) and patients with two or more failed full IVF/ICSI cycles (Group 2). A meta-analysis was performed when statistical heterogeneity was low; otherwise, a descriptive analysis was performed.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Fourteen RCTs involving 2537 participants were included. Most RCTs contained a high or unclear risk of bias on one or more items. Substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity was present; therefore meta-analysis for LBR and CPR could only be performed on Group 1. For this group, no differences between scratch and control were found for both LBR (risk ratio (RR) 1.01 [95%CI 0.68–1.51]) and CPR (RR 1.04 [95%CI 0.74–1.45]). For Groups 0 and 2, pooled analysis could not be performed, and for both groups the results of the individual RCTs were negative, neutral and positive. Miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates were evaluated for the three groups (0, 1 and 2) together. Both outcomes were not significantly different between scratch and control (miscarriage rate RR 0.82 [95%CI 0.57–1.17] and multiple pregnancy rate RR 1.06 [95%CI 0.84–1.35]). Subgroup analysis, excluding trials with a risk of unintentional endometrial injury in the control group, was performed for Group 0 and 2 for LBR and CPR, and for the overall groups for miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate. This reduced the heterogeneity and allowed for pooled analysis in these subgroups. Results of pooled analysis for the subgroups of Group 0 and 2 showed no significant difference for LBR, but CPR was significantly improved after endometrial scratching (Group 0 RR 1.28 [95%CI 1.02–1.62] and Group 2 RR 2.03 [95%CI 1.20–3.43]). Subgroup analysis of the overall groups showed no significant difference for miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rate.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The main limitations were that many RCTs had a high or unclear risk of bias on one or several items, clinical heterogeneity was still present despite categorizing into three populations, and that not all RCTs could be included in the analyses because separate data for our three groups could not be provided.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

It remains unclear if endometrial scratching improves the chance of pregnancy for women undergoing ART and, if so, for whom. This means endometrial scratching should not be offered in daily practice until results from large and well-designed RCTs and an individual patient data analysis become available.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

No specific funding was sought for the study. The Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecology funds of the University Medical Center of Utrecht were used to support the authors throughout the study period and preparation of the manuscript. None of the authors has a conflict of interest to declare.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

The Role of Endometrial Volume and Endometrial and Subendometrial Vascularization Parameters in a Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycle

The role of three-dimensional power Doppler ultrasonography of the endometrium in assisted reproduction is still far from clear. In this retrospective cohort study, transvaginal three-dimensional power Doppler examinations were performed 30 min before frozen-thawed embryo transfer. After pregnancy tests, two cohorts were established: P (pregnant, n = 31) and NP (nonpregnant, n = 31). The study only included nullipara with no uterine abnormalities who were undergoing infertility treatment at the Department of Gynecology, Obstetrics and Gynecological Endocrinology, Kepler University Hospital, Linz, Austria. The main outcome measures were the vascularization flow index (VFI), flow index (FI), and vascularization index (VI) in the endometrium/subendometrium, assessed using Virtual Organ Computer-aided AnaLysis (VOCAL™), and the endometrial volume. A total of 62 patients were enrolled in the study, forming two cohorts (pregnant, P; nonpregnant, NP). There were no significant differences between the two cohorts with regard to demographic data, numbers of embryos transferred, or embryo grading, but there was a significant difference in endometrial volume (cohort P, 3.17 ± 0.84 mL; cohort NP, 2.36 ± 0.9 mL; P = 0.001) and the pregnancy rate rises with larger volume. No differences were observed in the vascularization parameters FI, VFI, and VI in the endometrium and subendometrium. In the cohort of pregnant patients, there were 26 (41.9%) live births, with 21 term deliveries (80.8%). The endometrial volume was larger in the cohort of pregnant patients. Measurements were performed 30 min before embryo transfer, and no differences were observed in vascularization parameters in the subendometrium and endometrium.

Effect of endometrial mechanical stimulation in an unselected population undergoing in vitro fertilization: futility analysis of a double-blind randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Implantation failure is a major limiting factor of successful in vitro fertilization (IVF). The objective of this study was to determine if endometrial mechanical stimulation (EMS) by endometrial biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to embryo transfer (ET) improves clinical outcomes in an unselected subfertile population.

METHODS

Double-blind, randomized controlled trial of EMS versus sham biopsy and odds of clinical pregnancy after IVF and embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes included spontaneous miscarriage and live birth.

RESULTS

One hundred women enrolled and were randomized from 2013 to 2017. Enrollment was terminated after futility analysis showed no difference in clinical pregnancy between EMS versus control, 47.2% vs 61.7% (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.25-1.23, p = 0.15). There were no significant differences between women who underwent EMS and those who did not in terms of positive pregnancy test 54.7% vs 63.8% (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31-1.53, p = 0.36), miscarriage 7.5% vs 2.1% (OR 3.76 95% CI 0.41-34.85, p = 0.22), or live birth 43.4% vs 61.7% (OR 0.48 95% CI 0.21-1.06, p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

EMS in the luteal phase of the cycle preceding embryo transfer does not improve clinical outcomes in an unselected subfertile population and may result in a lower live birth rate. We caution the routine use of EMS in an unselected population.

Therapeutic Efficacy of Endometrial Scratching in Repeated Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) Failure Cycles

Objective:

The objective of the study was (1) “to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of endometrial scratching in repeated controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) failure cycles.” And (2) “to compare differences in pregnancy outcome by endometrial scratching in early (D2–D4) and late follicular phases (D7–D9) of the same stimulation cycle.”

Materials and Methods:

Women attending infertility clinic in a tertiary care center and who have two or more repeated COS failure cycles and planned for COS with intrauterine insemination (IUI) were included in the study which is a prospective parallel, interventional, single-blinded, randomized control study, in 1:1 allocation ratio. A total of 165 patients were recruited and randomly allocated into three groups: Group A (n = 55) underwent endometrial scratching on D2–D4 of the same COS cycle, Group B (n = 55) on D7–D9, and Group C (n = 55) no intervention done. All the patients underwent COS according to standard protocol followed by IUI.

Results:

Clinical pregnancy rate was 12.73% (odds ratio [OR] =0.87 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.288–2.55, P = 1), 16.36% (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 0.40–3.23, P = 1), and 14.54%, respectively, in Group A, B, and C, respectively (P = 0.86), as per intention to treat analysis. Using Chi-square test, P value between Group A and B was 0.787, between Group A and C was 1.000, and between Group B and C was 1.000. As per protocol analysis, clinical pregnancy rate was 13.46% (OR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.27–2.5, P = 0.74), 19.57% (OR = 1.3 95%; CI = 0.45–3.73, P = 0.41), and 15.69%. Using Chi-square test, Pvalue between Group A and B was 0.588, between Group A and C was 0.967, and between Group B and C was 0.815. No abortions and multiple pregnancies occurred in either of the groups.

Conclusion:

The effect found was of good quantum in Group B as per protocol analysis which could be of clinical relevance if larger sample size would have been taken. Endometrial scratching is a cost-effective and easy technique which may improve clinical pregnancy rates in previous COS failure cycles, but more trials are needed to be conducted using larger sample size to achieve the improved and significant outcome.

Endometrial scratching in women with implantation failure after a first IVF/ICSI cycle; does it lead to a higher live birth rate? The SCRaTCH study: a randomized controlled trial (NTR 5342)

BACKGROUND

Success rates of assisted reproductive techniques (ART) are approximately 30%, with the most important limiting factor being embryo implantation. Mechanical endometrial injury, also called 'scratching', has been proposed to positively affect the chance of implantation after embryo transfer, but the currently available evidence is not yet conclusive. The primary aim of this study is to determine the effect of endometrial scratching prior to a second fresh in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycle on live birth rates in women with a failed first IVF/ICSI cycle.

METHOD

Multicenter randomized controlled trial in Dutch academic and non-academic hospitals. A total of 900 women will be included of whom half will undergo an endometrial scratch in the luteal phase of the cycle prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using an endometrial biopsy catheter. The primary endpoint is the live birth rate after the 2^nd fresh IVF/ICSI cycle. Secondary endpoints are costs, cumulative live birth rate (after the full 2^nd IVF/ICSI cycle and over 12 months of follow-up); clinical and ongoing pregnancy rate; multiple pregnancy rate; miscarriage rate and endometrial tissue parameters associated with implantation failure.

DISCUSSION

Multiple studies have been performed to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching on live birth rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. Due to heterogeneity in both the method and population being scratched, it remains unclear which group of women will benefit from the procedure. The SCRaTCH trial proposed here aims to investigate the effect of endometrial scratching prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in a large group of women undergoing a second IVF/ICSI cycle.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR 5342 , registered July 31^st, 2015.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Version 4.10, January 4th, 2017.

Pregnancy after endometrial scratching in infertile couples undergoing ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination cycles-a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To study the effect of endometrial scratching in infertile couples undergoing ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, AIIMS, New Delhi, India. One hundred forty-four women with primary/secondary infertility were recruited. Couples were either unexplained or male factor infertility. Subjects were randomized into intervention (scratching) and control group. All patients received ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate (day 2-6) 50 mg/day +75 IU HMG on days 6 and 7. In addition, endometrial scratching was done on day 8 of ovulation induction cycle in intervention group. All couples were planned for three cycles of ovulation induction and IUI over 6 months. After each failed cycle, couple was advised to try for natural conception for one cycle. Those who conceived were excluded from further analysis. Primary outcome was clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcome measures included conception rate, ongoing pregnancy, abortion and ectopic rate.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in intervention group (31.9%; 23/72) as compared to control group (16.7%; 12/72) (p value 0.030). On per cycle analysis, first IUI cycle had significantly high pregnancy rate (18.1%; 13/72) as compared to control group (5.6%; 4/72). Three patients in intervention group and one in control group conceived in wash out cycle. Ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly higher in scratching group (30.0%; 21/70) as compared to control group (15.7%; 11/70) (p value0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial scratching can be used as a low cost-effective tool to improve clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rate in IUI cycles. Further large number studies are required to document its role in improving live birth rate.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2015/12/006419.

Does endometrial injury enhances implantation in recurrent in-vitro fertilization failures? A prospective randomized control study from tertiary care center

BACKGROUND:

Though Assisted Reproductive Techniques have overcome many fertility disorders, implantation is still considered, the rate-limiting step for the success of IVF.

AIM:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of endometrial scratching in improving the implantation rate in patients undergoing IVF-ET cycles.

DESIGN:

Prospective randomized control trial.

METHODS:

Sixty infertile women with a history of >1 previous failed IVF-ET cycles were randomizedinto two groups of 30 each. The patients in group 1 underwent endometrial scratching once between days 14-21 of menstrual cycle in the cycle prior to embryo transfer (ET), while in group 2scratching were not done. Implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, abortion rate and live birth rate were comparedbetween both groups.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:

Mean values were compared between two groups using Student's’t’ independent test. Frequency distributions of categorical variables were compared using Chi-Square/Fisher's exact test as appropriate.

RESULTS:

Implantation rate in group 1 was 19.4% whereas in group 2 it was 8.1%. Difference between two groups was statistically significant (P =0.028). The live birth rate was higher in the group 2 compared to group 1, however this difference was not statistically significant (3.3% vs 10%, P =0.612). No significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding the ongoing pregnancy rate (16.7% vs 0.0%; P =0.052), abortion rate (10.0% vs 3.3%, P =0.612) and miscarriage rate (6.7% vs 3.3%, P =0.99).

CONCLUSIONS:

Implantation rate increases significantly after endometrial scratching in patients with previous failed IVF-ET.

Placental vascularization alterations in hypertensive disorders complicating pregnancy (HDCP) and small for gestational age with HDCP using three-dimensional power doppler in a prospective case control study

Background

Hypertensive disorders complicating pregnancy (HDCP) continues to be a leading cause of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. The clinical value of placental three-dimensional power Doppler (3DPD) in assessing HDCP requires further confirmation. The research was developed to assess changes of placental vascularity in HDCP using 3DPD and to investigate the placental vascularity in small for gestational age (SGA) compared with not-SGA in patients with HDCP.

Methods

There were 126 normotensive and 128 hypertensive pregnant women included in this prospective case–control study from March 2011 to March 2013. Pregnant women underwent 3DPD. Vascularization index (VI), flow index (FI) and vascularization flow index (VFI) were obtained. The placental 3DPD indices, umbilical artery systolic and diastolic ratio (S/D) and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results

The placental VI and VFI were significantly lower in hypertensive women compared with normotensive women (P < 0.001 and P = 0.014, respectively), and these parameters were significantly reduced in severe preeclampsia (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). A weak correlation was found between VI and umbilical artery S/D in HDCP group (r = -0.277, P = 0.001). In HDCP population, neonates who were postnatally diagnosed with SGA had lower VI (P = 0.041) and higher S/D (P < 0.001).

Discussion

The placental vascularity indices decreased in hypertensive women and the reduction inplacental perfusion was consistent with the severity of the hypertensive disorder. The associations betweenplacental vascularization and umbilical artery impedance may be valuable for further researches and arerequired confirmation. The significant differences in the 3DPD placental vascularization between SGA andnot-SGA in hypertensive pregnancy population may show some clinical importance that we could use tobetter assess or predict the progression and adverse outcomes in the future. Although 3DPD quantificationhas been widely used in multiple publications, we have to acknowledge its limitations.

Conclusions

The intraplacental vascularization was poor in HDCP, and especially in severe preeclampsia. Neonates with SGA had poor placental vascularization and higher umbilical artery S/D. Further studies should focus on the clinical assessment of placental 3DPD as well as a combination of placental 3DPD and other fetal Doppler indices to better predict the development and outcomes of preeclampsia.

Effect of endometrial biopsy on intrauterine insemination outcome in controlled ovarian stimulation cycle

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to evaluate the effect of endometrial biopsy (EB) on intrauterine insemination (IUI) outcome in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycle.

DESIGN

Prospective randomized control study.

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 251 subjects were enrolled in the study. Subjects undergoing COS with IUI were randomly allocated into three groups. Group A: EB was taken between D19 and 24 of the spontaneous menstrual cycles that precedes the fertility treatment and IUI, which was done in next cycle (n = 86). Group B: EB was taken before D6 of the menstrual cycle, and fertility treatment and IUI was done in the same cycle (n = 90). Group C: (control group) no EB in previous 3 cycle (n = 75).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR).

RESULTS

Clinical pregnancy rate was 19.77%, 31.11%, and 9.3% for Group A, Group B, and Group C, respectively. The results show a highly significant value for the paired t-test of intervention Group B and control Group C of the cases (P = 0.000957). CPR was maximum after first cycle of ovulation induction and IUI following EB scratch in both Groups A and in Group B (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial biopsy done in early follicular phase in the same cycle of stimulation with IUI gives better CPR as compared with EB done in the luteal phase of the previous cycle.

The role of inflammation for a successful implantation

Approximately half of all human embryo implantations result in failed pregnancy. Multiple factors may contribute to this failure, including genetic or metabolic abnormalities of the embryo. However, many of these spontaneous early abortion cases are attributed to poor uterine receptivity. Furthermore, although many fertility disorders have been overcome by a variety of assisted reproductive techniques, implantation remains the rate-limiting step for the success of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments. We, as well as others, have demonstrated that endometrial biopsies performed either during the spontaneous, preceding cycle, or during the IVF cycle itself, significantly improve the rate of implantation, clinical pregnancies, and live births. These observations suggest that mechanical injury of the endometrium may enhance uterine receptivity by provoking the immune system to generate an inflammatory reaction. In strong support of this idea, we recently found that dendritic cells (DCs), an important cellular component of the innate immune system, play a critical role in successful implantation in a mouse model. In this review, we discuss the hypothesis that the injury-derived inflammation in the biopsy-treated patients generates a focus for uterine DCs and Mac accumulation that, in turn, enhance the endometrial expression of essential molecules that facilitate the interaction between the embryo and the uterine epithelium.