Enhanced Fertility After Diagnostic Hysterosalpingography Using Oil-Based Contrast Agents May Be Attributable to Immunomodulation

The effect of prior hysterosalpingo-foam sonography or hysterosalpingography on tubal patency: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) prior to hysterosalpingography (HSG) or HSG prior to HyFoSy affect visible tubal patency when compared HSG or HyFoSy alone?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Undergoing either HyFoSy or HSG prior to tubal patency testing by the alternative method does not demonstrate a significant difference in visible tubal patency when compared to HyFoSy or HSG alone.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

HyFoSy and HSG are two commonly used visual tubal patency tests with a high and comparable diagnostic accuracy for evaluating tubal patency. These tests may also improve fertility, although the underlying mechanism is still not fully understood. One of the hypotheses points to a dislodgment of mucus plugs that may have disrupted the patency of the Fallopian tubes.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a secondary analysis of the randomized controlled FOAM study, in which women underwent tubal patency testing by HyFoSy and HSG, randomized for order of the procedure. Participants either had HyFoSy first and then HSG, or vice versa. Here, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of tubal patency testing by HyFoSy or HSG prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method on visible tubal patency, compared to each method alone.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Infertile women aged between 18 and 41 years scheduled for tubal patency testing were eligible for participating in the FOAM study. Women with anovulatory cycles, endometriosis, or with a partner with male infertility were excluded. To evaluate the effect HyFoSy on tubal patency, we relied on HSG results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HSG in those who underwent and who did not undergo HyFoSy prior to their HSG (HyFoSy prior to HSG versus HSG alone). To evaluate the effect of HSG on tubal patency, we relied on HyFoSy results by comparing the proportion of women with bilateral tubal patency visible on HyFoSy in those who underwent and who did not undergo HSG prior to their HyFoSy (HSG prior to HyFoSy versus HyFoSy alone).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Between May 2015 and January 2019, we randomized 1160 women (576 underwent HyFoSy first followed by HSG, and 584 underwent HSG first followed by HyFoSy). Among the women randomized to HyFoSy prior to HSG, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HSG in 467/537 (87%) women, compared with 472/544 (87%) women who underwent HSG alone (risk difference 0.2%; 95% CI: -3.8% to 4.2%). Among the women randomized to HSG prior to HyFoSy, bilateral tubal patency was visible on HyFoSy in 394/471 (84%) women, compared with 428/486 (88%) women who underwent HyFoSy alone (risk difference -4.4%; 95% CI: -8.8% to 0.0%).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The results of this secondary analysis should be interpreted as exploratory and cannot be regarded as definitive evidence. Furthermore, it has to be noted that pregnancy outcomes were not considered in this analysis.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Tubal patency testing by either HyFoSy or HSG, prior to the alternative tubal patency testing method does not significantly affect visible tubal patency, when compared to alternative method alone. This suggests that both methods may have comparable abilities to dislodge mucus plugs in the Fallopian tubes.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The FOAM study 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, or interpretation of the data. H.R.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford University Press in the role of Deputy Editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a Data Safety and Monitoring Board as an independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. M.v.W. is coordinating editor of Cochrane Fertility and Gynaecology. B.W.J.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC (GNT1176437) and research funding from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Organon and Merck KGaA, and travel support from Merck KGaA. B.W.J.M. reports holding stocks of ObsEva. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring and travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Oil-based contrast for hysterosalpingography-regulated Th1/Th2-type cytokines and alleviated inflammation in rats with LPS-induced chronic endometritis

AIM

The chronic endometritis (CE) prevalence in people experiencing infertility is 2.8-56.8%, pregnancy rates in patients with infertility increase after hysterosalpingography with oil-based contrast, but the effect and mechanism are not clear. Here, we analyzed the effects of intrauterine ethiodized poppyseed oil (EPO) bathing on a rat model of CE and the possible underlying mechanism.

METHODS

CE rats were induced by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) exposure, and rats were subjected to intrauterine bathing with EPO or phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) after model verification. Serum and uterus levels of IFN-γ, IL-4, TNF-α, and IL-1β were detected by ELISA kit, and the number of CD138⁺ and CD68⁺ cells and uterine IFN-γ, IL-4, TNF-α, IL-1β, and NF-κB P65 expression were detected by immunohistochemistry after bathing.

RESULTS

LPS exposure induced the typical CE phenotype with CD138⁺ phagocyte infiltration of the endometrial stroma. Compared with PBS bathing, bathing with EPO in CE rats showed decreases in the CD138⁺ and CD68⁺ cells populations and significant decreases in serum and uterine IFN-γ levels, moreover, uterine IL-4 levels were slightly higher, and the IFN-γ/IL-4(Th1/Th2-type cytokine ratio) in the uterus was significantly lower. Local IFN-γ, TNF-α, and NF-κB P65 expression in the endometrium was significantly downregulated, while IL-4 expression was upregulated.

CONCLUSION

Intrauterine oil-based contrast bathing significantly alleviated local inflammation in the rat CE model by downregulating NF-κB P65 expression, reducing IFN-γ (Th1), increasing IL-4 levels (Th2) in the endometrium, and regulating the Th1/Th2-type cytokine trends toward Th2.

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.

Fertility-enhancing effect of oil-based contrast agents during hysterosalpingography and the variation of this effect within a 3-year follow-up period in infertile patients

Objective

The previous study has indicated the fertility-enhancing effect of oil-based contrast agents during hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile patients. However, the variation of this effect with the time frame is seldom reported. The current study aimed to explore fertility improvement using oil-based contrast agents and the change of this improvement during the 3-year follow-up period in infertile patients.

Materials and methods

Infertile women who underwent HSG with oil-based contrast agents (N = 500) or water-based contrast agents (N = 500) were enrolled. Spontaneous pregnancy rate and time to pregnancy were assessed at months (M)1, M2, M3, M6, M12, M24, and M36 after HSG.

Results

The spontaneous pregnancy rate was 79% in the oil-based group and 70.2% in the water-based group. The cumulative spontaneous pregnancy rate was increased in the oil-based group when compared with the water-based group (p = 0.015). Fertility-enhancing effect of HSG was increased in the oil-based group when compared with the water-based group at all time points {M1 [odds ratio (OR)]: 1.536}; M2 (OR: 1.455); M3 (OR: 1.494); M6 (OR: 1.356); M9 (OR: 1.288); M12 (OR: 1.249); M24 (OR: 1.131); and M36 (OR: 1.125). While this superiority of the fertility-enhancing effect of HSG in the oil-based group (vs. the water-based group) was decreased with the time frame. Similar findings were also observed based on the physiological cycles.

Conclusion

The HSG procedure with oil-based contrast agents shows a fertility-enhancing effect when compared to water-based contrast agents. This improvement could last at least 1 year while dropping to the normal level within the subsequent 2 years.

Fertility Outcome and Safety of Ethiodized Poppy Seed Oil for Hysterosalpingography in 1,053 Infertile Patients: A Real-World Study

Objective

Ethiodized poppy seed oil for hysterosalpingography (HSG) is reported to display some therapeutic effect on infertility, but big a sample-size study under real clinical settings is still lacking to verify the speculation. Thus, this real-world study enrolled 1,053 infertile patients who underwent ethiodized poppy seed oil-based HSG to explore its fertility enhancement value.

Method

A total of 1,053 infertile patients who underwent HSG using ethiodized poppy seed oil as the contrast medium were retrospectively analyzed. The live birth rate and 3-, 6-, 12-month and total pregnancy rate were retrieved. Besides, adverse events during and after HSG were recorded.

Results

The 3-, 6-, 12-month and total pregnancy rate was 22, 36.8, 50, and 53.8%, respectively. The total live birth rate was 42.7%. Sub-group analyses showed that pregnancy rate was 53.7, 53.8, 54.1, and 62.4% in subgroups of primary infertility patients, secondary infertility patients, infertility patients with fallopian tube disease, and infertility patients with unknown cause, respectively. Meanwhile the live birth rate was 44.3, 41.3, 41.5, and 59.2% in these subgroups, separately. Multivariate logistic regression analysis disclosed that BMI ≥ 24 kg/m², history of dysmenorrhea, and abnormity of sperm count or motility-related infertility were independently correlated with reduced pregnancy rate and livebirth rate (All Ps < 0.05). Adverse events mainly included pain (20.6%) and interstitial reflux (7.9%), which were mild and tolerable.

Conclusion

Ethiodized poppy seed oil for HSG discloses a satisfying fertility outcome with a tolerable safety profile in infertile patients; meanwhile, this effect might be influenced by BMI, history of dysmenorrhea, and paternal abnormity of sperm.

Spontaneous pregnancy rates in infertile women after sequential hydrosonography and hysterosalpingo-foam sonography

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical pregnancy rate following sequential hydrosonography and hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) in tubal patency assessment among women undergoing infertility work-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective follow-up of women referred to our department between July 2019 and October 2020. Sequential hydrosonography and HyFoSy were carried out.

RESULTS

Out of 250 having the procedure, 100 women were excluded from study due to limited infertility, semen abnormal or not examined, evaluation for social egg freezing or they were single. Of the remaining 150 women, 48 (32%) conceived during a 10-24 months follow-up period: 17 (11%) conceived naturally and 7 (4.7%) by IUI. The mean time to conception was 5.5 ± 5.4 months and the pregnancy rate was 52% within 6 months. Among the spontaneous pregnancies 47% occurred within a month and 76% within 3 months.

CONCLUSION

Sequential hydrosonography and HyFoSy is a promising method for assessing the uterine cavity and tubal patency in women undergoing infertility workup. The findings suggest that the procedure may increase the chance of a spontaneous pregnancy following the procedure. Given the other known advantages of sequential hydrosonography and HyFoSy, this test is worth including in the initial workup for infertile patients.

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.

Tubal Flushing Treatment for Unexplained Infertility

Tubal patency testing was initially introduced as a diagnostic test. However, it has been observed that some tubal patency tests also have a therapeutic effect. This therapeutic effect can be influenced by the contrast medium used during tubal flushing. In this review, we discuss current evidence associated with different methods for tubal flushing and their potential impact on reproductive outcomes in women with unexplained infertility. Furthermore, we discuss their diagnostic accuracy, safety, and cost-effectiveness.

Effects of oil-soluble versus water-soluble contrast media at hysterosalpingography on pregnancy outcomes in women with a low risk of tubal disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, due to various factors, the rate of infertility in China has increased and now affects over 10% of women of reproductive age. Hysterosalpingography (HSG) is a common diagnostic procedure during fertility examinations. However, there is no consensus on the choice of contrast agents and their effects. As the largest multicentre, randomised controlled trial (H2Oil trial from the Netherlands) has shown that oil-soluble contrast at HSG can enhance fertility compared with water-soluble contrast, we propose this study to examine whether the use of oil-soluble contrast media results in increased rates of pregnancy in Chinese women undergoing HSG.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a single-centre, randomised, controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial. Patients with low risk of tubal disease will be randomised to undergo HSG using iodinated oil injection (OSCM group, oil-soluble contrast media) or ioversol injection (WSCM group, water-soluble contrast media). To evaluate the potential superiority of the OSCM group, with 1:1 allocation ratio, 90% statistical power and a two-sided significance level of 5%, we have calculated a sample of 520 women per group to be enrolled, for a total of 1040 including 10% loss to follow-up or protocol variation. The primary outcome is the rate of ongoing pregnancy during 6 months after randomisation. The secondary outcomes will consist of thyroid function of patients and newborns, pain scores during HSG, rate of live birth, clinical pregnancies, miscarriages, ectopic pregnancy, time to ongoing pregnancy, time to live birth, cost calculations of the OSCM group/WSCM group, and assisted reproductive technology treatments between the two groups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol received authorisation from the Medical Research Ethics Committee of International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital on 18 January 2020 (approval no GKLW2020-02). The findings will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2000031612.

Tubal flushing for subfertility

BACKGROUND

Establishing the subgroup analysis of the fallopian tubes (tubes) is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and visualising patency on radiographs, ultrasonography or laparoscopy. Many women were noted to conceive in the first three to six months after tubal flushing, raising the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates. An important adverse event during tubal flushing is intravasation (backflow of contrast medium into the blood or lymphatic vessels),which could lead to embolism although it is asymptomatic in most cases.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) and water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) on subsequent fertility outcomes in women with subfertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, reference lists of identified articles and trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with OSCM, WSCM with each other or with no treatment, in women with subfertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen trials involving 3864 women were included in this systematic review. Overall, the quality of evidence varied from very low to moderate: the main limitations were risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision. OSCM versus no treatment Four studies (506 women) were included in this comparison. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 6.85, 3 RCTs, 204 women, I² = 0, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 11%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 16% and 46%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase in the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.08 to 6.02, 4 RCTs, 506 women, I² = 18%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 17% and 37%. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. WSCM versus no treatment Only one study (334 women) was included in this comparison. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increase live birth compared to no treatment (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 21%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 15% and 33%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increases clinical pregnancy compared to no treatment (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 27%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 29% and 40%. One case with pelvic infection was reported in the WSCM group and no case with infection in the no treatment group in a one study (334 women). Meta-analysis was not performed due to the rare events. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. OSCM versus WSCM Six studies (2598 women) were included in this comparison. Three studies reported live birth, including two with higher live birth in the OSCM group (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.11, 1119 women; OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.03, 398 women); and one with insufficient evidence of a difference between groups (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40, 533 women). Given the substantial heterogeneity observed (I² = 86%), meta-analysis was not performed. Tubal flushing with OSCM probably increased in the odds of intravasation (asymptomatic) compared to tubal flushing with WSCM (OR 5.00, 95% CI 2.25 to 11.12, 4 RCTs, 1912 women, I² = 0, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of intravasation following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 1%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 2% and 9%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.85, 6 RCTs, 2598 women, I² = 41%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 26%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 28% and 39%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with OSCM decreases the odds of infection (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.22, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I² = 0, very low-quality evidence) or haemorrhage (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.06, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I² = 0, very low-quality evidence). Three neonates with congenital abnormalities were reported in the OSCM group while no congenital abnormality was reported in the WSCM group in one study (1119 women). No meta-analysis was performed due to the rare events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence suggests that compared to no treatment, tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the chance of live birth and clinical pregnancy, while it is uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM improves those outcomes. Compared to tubal flushing with WSCM, OSCM may improve clinical pregnancy while meta-analysis was impossible for live birth due to heterogeneity. Evidence also suggests that OSCM is associated with an increased risk of asymptomatic intravasation. Overall, adverse events, especially long-term adverse events, are poorly reported across studies.

Treatment effect of oil-based contrast is related to experienced pain at HSG: a post-hoc analysis of the randomised H2Oil study

STUDY QUESTION

Does pain or volume of used contrast medium impact the effectiveness of oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In women who report moderate to severe pain during HSG, the use of oil-based contrast resulted in more ongoing pregnancies compared to the use of water-based contrast, whereas in women who reported mild or no pain, no difference in ongoing pregnancies was found.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, the use of oil-based contrast results in more ongoing pregnancies within 6 months as compared to the use of water-based contrast. However, the underlying mechanism of this fertility-enhancing effect remains unclear.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a post-hoc analysis of the H2Oil study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the therapeutic effect of oil- and water-based contrast at HSG. Here, we evaluated the impact of pain experienced at HSG and volume of used contrast media during HSG on ongoing pregnancy.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

In a subset of 400 participating women, pain during HSG by means of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (range: 0.0–10.0 cm) was reported, while in 512 women, we registered the volume of used contrast (in millilitres). We used logistic regression analyses to assess whether pain and volume of used contrast media modified the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy rates. Data were analysed according to intention-to-treat principle.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In 400 women in whom pain scores were reported, the overall median pain score was 5.0 (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.0–6.8) (oil group (n = 199) 4.8 (IQR 3.0–6.4); water group (n = 201) 5.0 (IQR 3.0–6.7); P-value 0.28). There was a significant interaction between pain (VAS ≤5 versus VAS ≥6) and the primary outcome ongoing pregnancy (P-value 0.047). In women experiencing pain (VAS ≥6), HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in better 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates compared to HSG with water-based contrast (49.4% versus 29.6%; RR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1–2.5), while in women with a pain score ≤5, 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates were not significantly different between the use of oil- (28.8%) versus water-based contrast (29.2%) (RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.66–1.5). In the 512 women in whom we recorded contrast, median volume was 9.0 ml (IQR 5.7–15.0) in the oil group versus 8.0 ml (IQR 5.9–13.0) in the water group, respectively (P-value 0.72). Volume of used contrast was not found to modify the effect of oil-based contrast on ongoing pregnancy (P-value for interaction 0.23).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This was a post-hoc analysis that should be considered as hypothesis generating. The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women, younger than 39 years of age and with a low risk for tubal pathology. Therefore, our results should not be generalised to infertile women who do not share these features.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The underlying mechanism of the fertility-enhancing effect induced by HSG with the use of oil-based contrast remains unclear. However, these findings suggest a possible mechanistic pathway, that is increasing intrauterine pressure occurring prior to dislodging pregnancy hindering debris or mucus plugs from the proximal part of otherwise normal fallopian tubes. This information might help in the search of the underlying fertility-enhancing mechanism found by using oil-based contrast during HSG.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet. H.V. reports consultancy fees from Ferring. C.B.L. reports speakers’ fees from Ferring and research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet and travel and research grants from Merck KGaA and Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflict of interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The H2Oil study was registered at the Netherlands Trial Registry (NTR 3270).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

1 February 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

3 February 2012.

Tubal flushing with oil-based or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility: long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of oil-based versus water-based contrast on pregnancy and live birth rates ≤5 years after hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women.

DESIGN

A 5-year follow-up study of a multicenter randomized trial.

SETTING

Hospitals.

PATIENT(S)

Infertile women with an ovulatory cycle, 18-39 years of age, and having a low risk of tubal pathology.

INTERVENTION(S)

Use of oil-based versus water-based contrast during HSG.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Ongoing pregnancy, live births, time to ongoing pregnancy, second ongoing pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

A total of 1,119 women were randomly assigned to HSG with oil-based contrast (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562). After 5 years, 444 of 555 women in the oil group (80.0%) and 419 of 559 women in the water group (75.0%) had an ongoing pregnancy (relative risk [RR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.14), and 415 of 555 women in the oil group (74.8%) and 376 of 559 women in the water group (67.3%) had live births (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20). In the oil group, 228 pregnancies (41.1%) were conceived naturally versus 194 (34.7%) pregnancies in the water group (RR 1.18; 95% CI 1.02-1.38). The time to ongoing pregnancy was significantly shorter in the oil group versus the water group (10.0 vs. 13.7 months; hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI 1.09-1.43). No difference was found in the occurrence of a second ongoing pregnancy.

CONCLUSION(S)

During a 5-year time frame, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates are higher after tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG compared with water-based contrast. More pregnancies are naturally conceived and time to ongoing pregnancy is shorter after HSG with oil-based contrast.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) 3270 and NTR6577(www.trialregister.nl).

Effectiveness on fertility outcome of tubal flushing with different contrast media: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare, in women with infertility, the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium, water-based contrast medium or their combination, and no tubal flushing, and to evaluate the effectiveness of tubal flushing on fertility outcome over time.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis, searching the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries, up to 25 September 2018. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the following interventions with each other or with no intervention in women with infertility: tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium, tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium or additional tubal flushing with oil-based medium following diagnostic tubal flushing with water-based medium. The outcomes included clinical pregnancy, live birth, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of the 283 studies identified through the search, 14 RCTs reporting on 3852 women with infertility were included. Network meta-analysis showed that tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium was associated with higher odds of clinical pregnancy within 6 months after randomization and more subsequent live births compared with tubal flushing using water-based medium (odds ratio (OR), 1.67 (95% CI, 1.38-2.03), moderate certainty of evidence; and OR, 2.18 (95% CI, 1.30-3.65), low certainty of evidence, respectively) and compared with no intervention (OR, 2.28 (95% CI, 1.50-3.47), moderate certainty of evidence; and OR, 2.85 (95% CI, 1.41-5.74), low certainty of evidence, respectively). These results agreed with those of the pairwise meta-analysis. For clinical pregnancy within 6 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference between tubal flushing with water-based contrast medium and no intervention (OR, 1.36 (95% CI, 0.91-2.04), low certainty of evidence). For fertility outcomes after 6 months, there was insufficient evidence of a difference in any comparison (low to very low certainty of evidence). Compared with tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium, the use of oil-based contrast medium was associated with higher odds of asymptomatic intravasation (OR, 5.06 (95% CI, 2.29-11.18), moderate certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

In women with infertility undergoing fertility workup, tubal flushing using oil-based contrast medium probably increases clinical pregnancy rates within 6 months after randomization and may increase subsequent live-birth rates, compared with tubal flushing using water-based contrast medium and compared with no intervention. Evidence on fertility outcomes beyond 6 months is inadequate to draw firm conclusions. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Tubal flushing with oil- or water-based contrast medium: can we identify markers that indicate treatment benefit?

STUDY QUESTION

Can we identify patient characteristics that distinguish which ovulatory infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG) benefit more or less from flushing with oil-based contrast medium compared to water-based contrast medium?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In ovulatory infertile women, HSG with oil-based contrast medium resulted in higher 6-month ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates as compared to HSG with water-based contrast medium and this treatment effect was independent of characteristics of the couple.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

We recently showed that in infertile women undergoing HSG, flushing with oil-based contrast medium resulted in more ongoing pregnancies than flushing with water-based contrast medium.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We used data from our randomized clinical trial (RCT) in which 1,119 ovulatory infertile women undergoing HSG during fertility work-up were randomized for use of oil-based (N = 557) or water-based (N = 562) contrast medium.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We built logistic regression models to predict ongoing pregnancy and live birth (secondary outcome) as a function of the specific contrast, the specific marker, and marker-by-contrast-interaction. Markers considered were female age, maternal ethnicity, female smoking, body mass index (BMI), duration of infertility, infertility being primary or secondary, sperm quality, and previous appendectomy.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The 6-month ongoing pregnancy rates in the overall population were 39.7% after use of oil-based contrast versus 29.1% after use of water-based contrast medium [relative risk (RR), 1.37; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.16–1.61; P < 0.001]. Among the studied baseline characteristics, BMI (P = 0.002) and semen volume (P = 0.02) were statistically significant prognosticators. The treatment effect of oil-based contrast was stronger in women with a BMI ≤30 kg/m² [RR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.23–1.92; P = 0.002], and in women whose partner had a semen volume >3 ml [RR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28–2.46; P = 0.02]. Also, in women who smoked, the treatment effect of flushing with oil was stronger, but this interaction did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.066). We found no positive effect of oil-based contrast in obese women. We found similar but weaker associations for live birth, which was probably due to lower number of events resulting in less power.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The RCT was restricted to infertile ovulatory women younger than 39 years of age without endocrinological disorders and at low risk for tubal pathology. Our results should not be generalized to infertile women who do not share these features.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

All infertile, ovulatory women younger than 39 years with a low risk for tubal pathology will benefit from an HSG with oil-based contrast; therefore, this should be offered to them after fertility work-up.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The original H2Oil RCT was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic institutions (AMC and VUmc) of the Amsterdam UMC. The study displayed in this paper was funded by an unconditional research grant from Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). K.D. reports consultancy for Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and also reports research grants from Guerbet. C.B.L. reports grants from Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, and personal fees from Ferring, outside the submitted work. P.H. reports grants from Guerbet, during the conduct of the study, and grants from Ferring and Merck, outside the submitted work. V.M. reports receiving travel and speakers fee as well as research grants from Guerbet. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Merck KGaA, and Guerbet, and research grants from Guerbet and Merck. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR 3270 www.trialregister.nl

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

1 February 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

3 February 2012.

The IVF-LUBE trial - a randomized trial to assess Lipiodol® uterine bathing effect in women with endometriosis or repeat implantation failure undergoing IVF

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does pre-IVF Lipiodol^® increase the success of IVF treatment in women with endometriosis or repeat implantation failure (RIF) compared with IVF alone?

DESIGN

Lipiodol is known to enhance natural fertility, especially amongst women with endometriosis. The effect of Lipiodol may accrue through an impact on the endometrium that enhances receptivity to implantation. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was carried out on 70 women due to undergo IVF. Women with endometriosis or RIF in previous IVF treatments, recruited from IVF clinics in New Zealand and in Pune, India, received either Lipiodol by hysterosalpingogram or no intervention prior to IVF treatment.

RESULTS

Between May 2009 and January 2014, 33 women were randomized to Lipiodol plus IVF and 37 to IVF alone. When pregnancies resulting from fresh embryo transfer from the IVF cycle under study were considered, live birth rates were 8/33 (24%) in the pre-IVF Lipiodol group and 11/37 (30%) in the IVF only group (relative risk [RR] 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37 to 1.8). Live birth rates from pregnancies within 6 months were 11/33 (33%) and 12/37 (32%) in these respective groups (RR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.53 to 2.0). The trial was underpowered to detect smaller differences between treatment and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No evidence was found of benefit of Lipiodol prior to fresh embryo transfer in women with endometriosis or RIF. It is suggested that this treatment should not be undertaken purely as an adjuvant in IVF other than in the context of a further well-designed RCT.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination

BACKGROUND

Intentional endometrial injury is currently 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 or a similar technique, and is a common, simple, gynaecological procedure that has an established safety profile. However, it is also known to be associated with 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 low complexity fertility treatments such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and ovulation induction (OI), remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gyanecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE, ISI Web of Knowledge and ClinicalTrials.gov; as well as reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. We performed the searches from inception to 31 October 2015.

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 OI) 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

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed trial quality using GRADE methodology. The primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and bleeding secondary to the procedure. We combined data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials, which included a total of 1512 women, met the inclusion criteria of this Cochrane review. Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. In seven studies the women were undergoing IUI and in two studies the women were trying to conceive from sexual intercourse. Eight trials compared intentional endometrial injury with no injury/placebo procedure; of these two trials also compared intentional endometrial injury in the cycle prior to IUI with intentional endometrial injury in the IUI cycle. One trial compared higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injury. Intentional endometrial injury vs. either no intervention or a sham procedureWe are uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy as the quality of the evidence has been assessed as very low (risk ratio (RR) 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 3.15; six RCTs, 950 participants; I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). When we restricted the analysis to only studies at low risk of bias the effect was imprecise and the evidence remained of very low quality (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.82; one RCT, 105 participants; very low quality evidence). Endometrial injury may improve clinical pregnancy rates however the evidence is of low quality (RR 1.98, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.58; eight RCTs, 1180 participants; I² statistic = 0%, low quality evidence).The average pain experienced by participants undergoing endometrial injury was 6/10 on a zero-10 visual analogue scale (VAS)(standard deviation = 1.5). However, only one study reported this outcome. Higher vs. lower degree of intentional endometrial injuryWhen we compared hysteroscopy with endometrial injury to hysteroscopy alone, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; one RCT, 332 participants; low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.01; one RCT, 332 participants, low quality evidence). This study did not report the primary outcome of pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injuryWhen endometrial injury was performed in the cycle prior to IUI compared to the same cycle as the IUI, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.16, one RCT, 176 participants; very low quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.36; two RCTs, 276 participants; very low quality evidence). Neither of these studies reported the primary outcome of pain during the procedure.In all three comparisons there was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. No studies reported bleeding secondary to the procedure.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the probability of pregnancy and live birth/ongoing pregnancy in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution as we graded the quality of the evidence as either low or very low. The main reasons we downgraded the quality of the evidence were most included studies were at a high risk of bias and had an overall low level of precision. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise internal bias are required to confirm or refute these findings.

Venous intravasation as a complication and potential pitfall during hysterosalpingography: re-emerging study with a novel classification

OBJECTIVES

Presently, hysterosalpingography (HSG) is used as a means to evaluate women with infertility and repetitive pregnancy loss. Venous intravasation is a complication and potential pitfall during HSG and analogous procedures including hysteroscopy. The aim of our study was to assess the venous intravasation and to obtain critical information for more secure and more accurate procedures. In particular, the primary goal of the present study was to compare HSG without and with intravasation to identify differences seen on HSG and to assess the predisposing factors of intravasation. The secondary goal was to describe clinical- and imaging-based novel classification of intravasation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study included a patient cohort of 569 patients who underwent HSG between 2008 and 2011 at our center in the absence (control group) or presence (study group) of intravasation. Intravasation classified from level 0 (no intravasation) to level 3 (severe intravasation) was compared with preprocedural (demographic and clinical) and procedural (HSG) data. Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) statistical software.

RESULTS

Of the 569 patients undergoing HSG, 528 showed no intravasation and 41 (7.2%) patients showed intravasation when associated with preprocedural (leukocytes, menometrorrhagia, secondary infertility, ectopic pregnancy, abortus, polycystic ovaries, endometriosis, and interventions) and procedural (pain, scheduling, endometrial-uterine nature, and spillage) parameters. Moreover, intravasation was lower in women with smooth endometrium, triangular uterus, and homogeneous peritoneal spillage. No association was found between age, tubal patency, increased pressure, and intravasation.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a novel classification method, intravasation can be observed in women during HSG and associates with preprocedural and procedural predisposing factors in subsumed conditions. This classification method will be useful for improving the efficiency and accuracy of HSG and related procedures by minimization of severe complications caused by intravasation.

The incorporation of iodine in thyroid hormone may stem from its role as a prehistoric signal of ecologic opportunity: An evolutionary perspective and implications for modern diseases

To optimize fitness under conditions of varying Darwinian opportunity, organisms demonstrate tremendous plasticity in their life-history strategies based on their perception of available resources. Higher-energy environments generally promote more aggressive life-history strategies, such as faster growth, larger adult size, greater genetic variation, shorter lifespan, larger brood sizes, and offspring ratio skewed towards the larger-sized gender. While numerous mechanisms regulate life-history plasticity including genetic imprinting, methylation, and growth factors, evidence suggests that thyroid hormone plays a central role. Given the pivotal adaptive role of thyroid hormone, the teleology of its dependence on dietary iodine for production remains unexplained. We hypothesize that iodine may have emerged as a substrate for production of thyroid hormone in prehistoric ecosystems because the former represented a reliable proxy for ecologic potential that enabled the latter to modulate growth, reproduction, metabolic rate, and lifespan. Such a scenario may have existed in early marine ecosystems where ocean-surface vegetation, which concentrates iodine for its antimicrobial and antioxidant properties, formed the basis of the food chain. Teleologic parallels can be drawn to the food-chain accumulation of antimicrobials that also exhibit antioxidant properties and promote adult size, brood size, and offspring quality by modulating central hormonal axes. As each higher species in the food chain tunes its life-history strategy based on iodine intake, the coupling of this functional role of iodine with its value as a resource signal to the next member of the food-chain may promote runaway evolution. Whereas predators in prehistoric ecosystems successfully tuned their life-history strategy using iodine as a major input, the strategy may prove maladaptive in modern humans for whom the pattern of iodine intake is decoupled from resource availability. Iodine acquired through sodium iodide supplementation may independently contribute to some biologic dysfunctions currently attributed to sodium.