Two-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography compared to three/four-dimensional hysterosalpingo-contrast-sonography for the assessment of tubal occlusion in women with infertility/subfertility: a systematic review with meta-analysis

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up?

SUMMARY ANSWER

During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study.

WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS

Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility†

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after 'standard' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial draft, the final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations-of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak-10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker's fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker's fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

Evaluation of tubal patency by hysterosalpingo-contrast Sonography (HyCoSy): Controversies, dilemmas and considerations

Evaluation of tubal patency is one of the vital steps in the process of female infertility management. Hysterosalpingo-contrast Sonography (HyCoSy) has become the first-line recommendation for evaluating tubal patency. However, there remain some controversies and dilemmas relevant to the evaluation of tubal patency by HyCosy, with no effective solution has been proposed or no consensus has been reached. Herein, combined with previous research and clinical experience, we conclude and analyze these controversies and dilemmas, aiming at offering our perspective on the opportunities and challenges which are faced by HyCosy.

Risk Factors of Contrast Agent Intravasation With Sulfur Hexafluoride Microbubble During Hysterosalpingo-Contrast Sonography

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the risk factors of sulfur hexafluoride microbubble contrast agent intravasation during hysterosalpingo-contrast sonography (HyCoSy), and to explore a simple prediction model by the obvious clinical history.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study included 299 infertility women who had undergone HyCoSy examination from July 1, 2018 to June 31, 2019. The factors were recorded, including age, endometrial thickness, balloon length, infertility type, history of intrauterine surgery, history of pelvic surgery, and tubal patency. The method of multivariate logistic regression analysis was adopted to analyze the risk factors affecting the contrast agent intravasation, and the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to test their efficacy.

RESULTS

Secondary infertility, a history of intrauterine surgery, thin endometrial thickness, and tubal obstruction were all risk factors of the occurrence of intravasation (P < .05). And the area under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the multifactor-combined prediction model of the intravasation was significantly larger than that of single-factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Sonographers and gynecologists should be familiar with the risk factors of intravasation and select the appropriate timing of HyCoSy toward reducing the occurrence of intravasation and other complications after thoroughly explaining and communicating with the patients.

Factors Associated with a Post-Procedure Spontaneous Pregnancy after a Hysterosapingo-Foam-Sonography (HyFoSy): Results from a Multicenter Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Tubal patency testing constitutes an essential part of infertility work-up. Hysterosalpingo-foam-sonography (HyFoSy) is currently one of the best tests for assessing tubal patency. The objective of our study was to evaluate the post-procedure rate of spontaneous pregnancy among infertile women submitted for an HyFoSy exam with ExEm^® foam and the factors associated with this.

METHODS

Multicenter, prospective, observational study performed at six Spanish centers for gynecologic sonography and human reproduction. From December 2015 to June 2021, 799 infertile women underwent HyFoSy registration consecutively. The patients' information was collected from their medical records. Multivariable regression analyses were performed, controlling for age, etiology, and time of sterility. The main outcome was to measure post-procedure spontaneous pregnancy rates and the factors associated with the achievement of pregnancy.

RESULTS

201 (26.5%) women got spontaneous conception (SC group), whereas 557 (73.5%) women did not get pregnant (non-spontaneous conception group, NSC). The median time for reaching SC after HyFoSy was 4 months (CI 95% 3.1-4.9), 18.9% of them occurring the same month of the procedure. Couples with less than 18 months of infertility were 93% more likely to get pregnant after HyFoSy (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.34-2.81; p < 0.001); SC were two times more frequent in women under 35 years with unexplained infertility (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.07-4.65; P0.033).

CONCLUSION

After HyFoSy, one in four patients got pregnant within the next twelve months. Couples with shorter infertility time, unexplained infertility, and women under 35 years are more likely to achieve SC after HyFoSy.

Comparation of magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography and hysterosalpingosonography for the assessment of fallopian tubal occlusion of female infertility: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance hysterosalpingography (MR-HSG) for fallopian tubal occlusion in the context of female infertility when compared to the diagnostic performance of hysterosalpingosonography in evaluation of fallopian tubal occlusion of female infertility.

METHODS

We will search PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Chinese biomedical databases from their inceptions to the October 31, 2021, without language restrictions. Two authors will independently carry out searching literature records, scanning titles and abstracts, full texts, collecting data, and assessing risk of bias. Review Manager 5.2 and Stata14.0 software will be used for data analysis.

RESULTS

This systematic review will investigate whether MR-HSG has more diagnostic value than hysterosalpingosonography in evaluation of fallopian tubal occlusion of female infertility.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis indicated MR-HSG may serve as an alternative for further evaluation of fallopian tubal occlusion of female infertility.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

INPLASY2021110050.

The Performance of Transvaginal Two-Dimensional Fundamental Sonosalpingography Combined with Saline Infusion Pelvic Sonosalpingography for Assessing Fimbrial Part's Morphology and Function of the Fallopian Tubes

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of transvaginal two-dimensional fundamental sonosalpingography (2D-FS) combined with saline infusion pelvic sonosalpingography (SIPS) for assessing fimbrial part's morphology and function of the fallopian tubes.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty-nine cases underwent 2D-FS combined with SIPS. Among them, 18 cases received laparoscopy and dye test (LDT) within 3 months after the examination and the results were regarded as reference standard.

RESULTS

Excluding proximal or middle segment obstructed tubes, the remaining fimbrial parts' display rate by using 2D-FS combined with SIPS was 75.1%. According to the ultrasonic appearance, the fimbrial parts were classified into 4 types: normal, abnormal, suspected abnormal, and unclassifiable. Normal fimbrial parts accounted for 73.8% when the tubes were patent; abnormal fimbrial parts accounted for 74.1% when the tubes were partial obstructed; all became abnormal when the tubes were distal complete obstructed. The fimbrial parts which had been classified by 2D-FS combined with SIPS were compared with LDT further. This combination's accuracy (ACC), sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and Youden's index (YI) were 86.4, 87.5, 85.7, 77.8, 92.3, and 0.73%, respectively. The result of consistency analysis showed the combination was essentially consistent with LDT result (Kappa = 0.713).

CONCLUSION

2D-FS combined with SIPS can be a preferred method for assessment of the fimbrial part's morphology and function, with its advantages of non-invasive, intuition, and accuracy. This combination could provide an objective imaging basis for choosing clinical treatment strategies and predicting prognosis.

Hysterolaparoscopy: A Gold Standard for Diagnosing and Treating Infertility and Benign Uterine Pathology

Background: Combined hysteroscopy and laparoscopy is a valuable method for diagnosing and treating infertility and benign uterine pathology. Both procedures are minimally invasive, reliable, and safe, with a low complication rate. Aim: In this review, we expose the efficiency and safety of hysterolaparoscopy in the management of infertility and other benign uterine pathologies. Method: We performed a systematic literature review on several databases: PubMed^®/MEDLINE, PMC, Crossref.org, and Web of Science in the last 10 years. Inclusion criteria: Women of reproductive age with primary or secondary infertility and/or benign uterine pathology. Exclusion criteria: pre-puberty, menopause, couple with male infertility. Conclusion: Hysterolaparoscopy is a useful tool to assess infertility and simultaneously diagnose and treat pelvic and uterine lesions.