Literature DB >> 28520519

Oil-Based or Water-Based Contrast for Hysterosalpingography in Infertile Women.

Kim Dreyer1, Joukje van Rijswijk1, Velja Mijatovic1, Mariëtte Goddijn1, Harold R Verhoeve1, Ilse A J van Rooij1, Annemieke Hoek1, Petra Bourdrez1, Annemiek W Nap1, Henrike G M Rijnsaardt-Lukassen1, Catharina C M Timmerman1, Mesrure Kaplan1, Angelo B Hooker1, Anna P Gijsen1, Ron van Golde1, Cathelijne F van Heteren1, Alexander V Sluijmer1, Jan-Peter de Bruin1, Jesper M J Smeenk1, Jacoba A M de Boer1, Eduard Scheenjes1, Annette E J Duijn1, Alexander Mozes1, Marie J Pelinck1, Maaike A F Traas1, Machiel H A van Hooff1, Gijsbertus A van Unnik1, Cornelia H de Koning1, Nan van Geloven1, Jos W R Twisk1, Peter G A Hompes1, Ben W J Mol1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy rates among infertile women have been reported to increase after hysterosalpingography, but it is unclear whether the type of contrast medium used (oil-based or water-soluble contrast) influences this potential therapeutic effect.
METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized trial in 27 hospitals in the Netherlands in which infertile women who were undergoing hysterosalpingography were randomly assigned to undergo this procedure with the use of oil-based or water-based contrast. Subsequently, couples received expectant management or the women underwent intrauterine insemination. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy within 6 months after randomization. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.
RESULTS: A total of 1119 women were randomly assigned to hysterosalpingography with oil contrast (557 women) or water contrast (562 women). A total of 220 of 554 women in the oil group (39.7%) and 161 of 554 women in the water group (29.1%) had an ongoing pregnancy (rate ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 1.61; P<0.001), and 214 of 552 women in the oil group (38.8%) and 155 of 552 women in the water group (28.1%) had live births (rate ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.64; P<0.001). Rates of adverse events were low and similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Rates of ongoing pregnancy and live births were higher among women who underwent hysterosalpingography with oil contrast than among women who underwent this procedure with water contrast. (Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR3270 .).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28520519     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1612337

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  33 in total

1.  Comparison of sonohysterography to hysterosalpingogram for tubal patency assessment in a multicenter fertility treatment trial among women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Authors:  Mindy S Christianson; Richard S Legro; Susan Jin; Esther Eisenberg; Michael P Diamond; Karl R Hansen; Wendy Vitek; Aaron K Styer; Peter Casson; Christos Coutifaris; Gregory M Christman; Ruben Alvero; Elizabeth E Puscheck; Alicia Y Christy; Fangbai Sun; Heping Zhang; Alex J Polotsky; Nanette Santoro
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 3.412

Review 2.  Modern assessment of the uterine cavity and fallopian tubes in the era of high-efficacy assisted reproductive technology.

Authors:  Kate Devine; Shelley Dolitsky; Inga Ludwin; Artur Ludwin
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2022-07       Impact factor: 7.490

Review 3.  Artificial Intelligence in the Assessment of Female Reproductive Function Using Ultrasound: A Review.

Authors:  Zhiyi Chen; Ziyao Wang; Meng Du; Zhenyu Liu
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 2.754

Review 4.  Risk factors of subclinical hypothyroidism and the potential contribution to miscarriage: A review.

Authors:  Shuhei So; Fumiko Tawara
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2020-03-18

5.  The Impact of Preconceptional Hysterosalpingography with Oil-based Contrast on Maternal and Neonatal Iodine Status.

Authors:  Rongrong Li; Wei Chen; Yanping Liu; Liangkun Ma; Ling Qiu; Jianhua Han; Rui Li
Journal:  Reprod Sci       Date:  2021-06-02       Impact factor: 3.060

6.  Successful ovarian stimulation and pregnancy in an infertile woman with Rathke's cleft cyst: a case report.

Authors:  Xueqi Gong; Hemei Li; Yiqing Zhao
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2021-11-15       Impact factor: 4.060

7.  Gynaecological and IVF procedures billed through the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Anais Alonso; Rebecca Deans; Erin Nesbitt-Hawes; Anusch Yazdani; Lalla McCormack; Yi Ying Koh; Jason Abbott
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 1.884

8.  Thyroid function in neonates conceived after hysterosalpingography with iodinated contrast.

Authors:  N van Welie; I Roest; M Portela; J van Rijswijk; C Koks; C B Lambalk; K Dreyer; B W J Mol; M J J Finken; V Mijatovic
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 6.918

Review 9.  Diagnosis and Management of Infertility: A Review.

Authors:  Sandra Ann Carson; Amanda N Kallen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 157.335

10.  The FOAM study: is Hysterosalpingo foam sonography (HyFoSy) a cost-effective alternative for hysterosalpingography (HSG) in assessing tubal patency in subfertile women? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Joukje van Rijswijk; Nienke van Welie; Kim Dreyer; Machiel H A van Hooff; Jan Peter de Bruin; Harold R Verhoeve; Femke Mol; Kimiko A Kleiman-Broeze; Maaike A F Traas; Guido J J M Muijsers; Arentje P Manger; Judith Gianotten; Cornelia H de Koning; Aafke M H Koning; Neriman Bayram; David P van der Ham; Francisca P J M Vrouenraets; Michaela Kalafusova; Bob I G van de Laar; Jeroen Kaijser; Miriam F van Oostwaard; Wouter J Meijer; Frank J M Broekmans; Olivier Valkenburg; Lucy F van der Voet; Jeroen van Disseldorp; Marieke J Lambers; Henrike E Peters; Marit C I Lier; Cornelis B Lambalk; Madelon van Wely; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Jaap Stoker; Fulco van der Veen; Ben W J Mol; Velja Mijatovic
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2018-05-09       Impact factor: 2.809

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.