BACKGROUND: Hydrosalpinges have adverse effects on IVF outcomes. Salpingectomy is effective in improving outcomes, but it is not always practical or safe. Ultrasound-guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges at oocyte collection is an option for those who develop hydrosalpinges during controlled ovarian stimulation; however, there is no randomized evidence to show whether this practice is effective. METHODS:Between October 1999 and June 2003, consenting women of age <or=39 years with an ultrasound diagnosis of hydrosalpinx were randomized before oocyte collection to transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpinx under antibiotics cover or no aspiration. Third-party randomization was performed using a computer algorithm, and allocation concealment was achieved with opaque sealed envelopes. Outcomes were biochemical and clinical pregnancies, implantation, spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy and pelvic infection rates. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS:Sixty-six women were recruited to the trial, 32 to the aspiration group and 34 to the no-aspiration group. Aspiration resulted in a greater biochemical pregnancy rate [14/32 (43.8%) versus 7/34 (20.6%), relative risk (RR) = 2.1 (1.02, 4.6), P = 0.04]. Clinical pregnancy rates for aspiration versus control groups were 31.3% (10/32) and 17.6% (6/34), respectively [RR = 1.8 (0.8, 4.3), P = 0.20]. There were no changes in implantation rate or spontaneous abortion risk with aspiration and no differences between the groups in infection or ectopic pregnancy rates. CONCLUSIONS: In women who are identified to have hydrosalpinges during controlled ovarian stimulation during IVF, aspiration of hydrosalpinges during oocyte collection may be effective in improving pregnancy rates (Trial Registration Number: NCT00566956).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Hydrosalpinges have adverse effects on IVF outcomes. Salpingectomy is effective in improving outcomes, but it is not always practical or safe. Ultrasound-guided aspiration of hydrosalpinges at oocyte collection is an option for those who develop hydrosalpinges during controlled ovarian stimulation; however, there is no randomized evidence to show whether this practice is effective. METHODS: Between October 1999 and June 2003, consenting women of age <or=39 years with an ultrasound diagnosis of hydrosalpinx were randomized before oocyte collection to transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpinx under antibiotics cover or no aspiration. Third-party randomization was performed using a computer algorithm, and allocation concealment was achieved with opaque sealed envelopes. Outcomes were biochemical and clinical pregnancies, implantation, spontaneous abortion, ectopic pregnancy and pelvic infection rates. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Sixty-six women were recruited to the trial, 32 to the aspiration group and 34 to the no-aspiration group. Aspiration resulted in a greater biochemical pregnancy rate [14/32 (43.8%) versus 7/34 (20.6%), relative risk (RR) = 2.1 (1.02, 4.6), P = 0.04]. Clinical pregnancy rates for aspiration versus control groups were 31.3% (10/32) and 17.6% (6/34), respectively [RR = 1.8 (0.8, 4.3), P = 0.20]. There were no changes in implantation rate or spontaneous abortion risk with aspiration and no differences between the groups in infection or ectopic pregnancy rates. CONCLUSIONS: In women who are identified to have hydrosalpinges during controlled ovarian stimulation during IVF, aspiration of hydrosalpinges during oocyte collection may be effective in improving pregnancy rates (Trial Registration Number: NCT00566956).
Authors: Elizabeth Yohannes; Avedis A Kazanjian; Morgan E Lindsay; Dennis T Fujii; Nicholas Ieronimakis; Gregory E Chow; Ronald D Beesley; Ryan J Heitmann; Richard O Burney Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Pedro Melo; Ektoras X Georgiou; Neil Johnson; Sabine F van Voorst; Annika Strandell; Ben Willem J Mol; Christian Becker; Ingrid E Granne Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-10-22