Joukje van Rijswijk1, Nienke van Welie2, Kim Dreyer2, Clarabelle T Pham3, Harold R Verhoeve4, Annemieke Hoek5, Jan Peter de Bruin6, Annemiek W Nap7, Machiel H A van Hooff8, Mariëtte Goddijn9, Angelo B Hooker10, Petra Bourdrez11, Angelique J C M van Dongen12, Ilse A J van Rooij13, Henrike G M van Rijnsaardt-Lukassen14, Ron J T van Golde15, Cathelijne F van Heteren16, Marie J Pelinck17, Annette E J Duijn18, Mesrure Kaplan19, Cornelis B Lambalk2, Velja Mijatovic2, Ben W J Mol20. 1. Department of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.vanrijswijk@amsterdamumc.nl. 2. Department of Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 3. College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam; the Netherlands. 5. Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, the Netherlands. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Franciscus Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 9. Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zaans Medical Centre, Zaandam, the Netherlands. 11. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VieCuri Medical Centre, Venlo, the Netherlands. 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hospital Gelderse Vallei, Ede, the Netherlands. 13. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, the Netherlands. 14. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. 15. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maastricht UMC, Maastricht, the Netherlands. 16. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. 17. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Scheper Hospital, Emmen, the Netherlands. 18. Vrouwenkliniek Zuidoost, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 19. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Röpcke-Zweers Hospital, Hardenberg, the Netherlands. 20. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
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).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of oil-based versus water-based contrast on pregnancy and live birth rates ≤5 years after hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertilewomen. DESIGN: A 5-year follow-up study of a multicenter randomized trial. SETTING: Hospitals. PATIENT(S): Infertilewomen 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).
Authors: R van Eekelen; K Rosielle; N van Welie; K Dreyer; M van Wely; B W Mol; M J Eijkemans; V Mijatovic; N van Geloven Journal: Hum Reprod Open Date: 2020-11-17
Authors: K Rosielle; D Kamphuis; N van Welie; I Roest; A Mozes; E J P van Santbrink; T van de Laar; A B Hooker; A G Huppelschoten; W Li; M Y Bongers; J Stoker; M van Wely; C Koks; C B Lambalk; A Hemingway; B W J Mol; K Dreyer; V Mijatovic Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2022-04-18 Impact factor: 2.742