D B Spring1, H E Barkan, S C Pruyn. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, Oakland, CA 94611-5693, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of the contrast material used in hysterosalpingography (HSG) on subsequent reproductive success, independent of other therapeutic interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective, multisite, randomized trial, 666 women who had been infertile for more than 1 year and were scheduled to undergo HSG as part of their evaluation were assigned to one of three groups: those receiving water-soluble contrast material (WSCM) (n = 260), those receiving oil-soluble contrast material (OSCM) (n = 273), and those receiving both OSCM and WSCM (n = 133). Possible causes of infertility and therapeutic interventions were abstracted from the medical records. Data on conception within 1 year and the outcome of conception were ascertained from multiple sources. RESULTS:Of 666 women, 204 (30.6%) had at least one pregnancy, and 136 (20.4%) had live births. The rates of live births were 20.4% (54 of 260) after HSG with WSCM, 19.4% (53 of 273) after HSG with OSCM, and 21.8% (29 of 133) after HSG with both WSCM and OSCM. Differences in reproductive outcome among contrast material groups were not statistically significant ((chi2)8 = 6.08, P = .64). Whatever the cause of infertility, the use of different contrast materials led to no significant differences in the rates of live births. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to suggest that the choice of contrast material affects the rate of term pregnancy.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of the contrast material used in hysterosalpingography (HSG) on subsequent reproductive success, independent of other therapeutic interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective, multisite, randomized trial, 666 women who had been infertile for more than 1 year and were scheduled to undergo HSG as part of their evaluation were assigned to one of three groups: those receiving water-soluble contrast material (WSCM) (n = 260), those receiving oil-soluble contrast material (OSCM) (n = 273), and those receiving both OSCM and WSCM (n = 133). Possible causes of infertility and therapeutic interventions were abstracted from the medical records. Data on conception within 1 year and the outcome of conception were ascertained from multiple sources. RESULTS: Of 666 women, 204 (30.6%) had at least one pregnancy, and 136 (20.4%) had live births. The rates of live births were 20.4% (54 of 260) after HSG with WSCM, 19.4% (53 of 273) after HSG with OSCM, and 21.8% (29 of 133) after HSG with both WSCM and OSCM. Differences in reproductive outcome among contrast material groups were not statistically significant ((chi2)8 = 6.08, P = .64). Whatever the cause of infertility, the use of different contrast materials led to no significant differences in the rates of live births. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence to suggest that the choice of contrast material affects the rate of term pregnancy.
Authors: Lamiya Mohiyiddeen; Anne Hardiman; Cheryl Fitzgerald; Edward Hughes; Ben Willem J Mol; Neil Johnson; Andrew Watson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-05-01
Authors: N van Welie; K Dreyer; J van Rijswijk; H R Verhoeve; M Goddijn; A W Nap; J M J Smeenk; M A F Traas; H G M Rijnsaardt-Lukassen; A J C M van Dongen; P Bourdrez; J P de Bruin; A V Sluijmer; A P Gijsen; P M van de Ven; C B Lambalk; V Mijatovic; B W J Mol Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 6.918