The Impact of High Circulating Anti-Müllerian Hormone on Endometrial Thickness and Outcome of Assisted Reproductive Technology in Women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: A Cohort Study.

Background: Elevated circulating anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in women with the polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) has been found to have a detrimental effect on endometrial function. This may adversely affect the outcome of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in PCOS women. Aims: To investigate the impact of high serum AMH concentrations on endometrial thickness (ET) and the outcome of IVF in women with PCOS. Settings and Design: This retrospective cohort study included all PCOS women who underwent fresh IVF\intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles between January 2016 and December 2021 in one major IVF centre. Materials and Methods: PCOS diagnosis was based on Rotterdam criteria, and participants were identified from centre database. All women received antagonist protocol. Primary outcomes were trigger-day ET and live birth rate (LBR). Circulating AMH was correlated with ET and ovarian response. Statistical Analysis Used: AMH levels were compared between women with and without live birth. ET and LBRs were compared between women with AMH <7.0 ng/ml versus those with AMH ≥7.0 ng/ml. Results: The study included 102 PCOS women, of which six were excluded due to poor response (n = 4), hyperresponse (n = 1) or fertilisation failure (n = 1). Of the remaining 96 women, 42 (43.8%) achieved a live birth. There was no statistically significant (P > 0.05) correlation between AMH and ET. Mean ± standard deviation AMH concentration was not significantly (P > 0.05) different between women with live birth (6.5 ± 3.4 ng/ml) and those without (6.5 ± 2.4 ng/ml). High AMH positively correlated with the number of oocytes retrieved, metaphase II oocytes and embryos (P = 0.003, 0.006 and 0.006, respectively). There was no statistically significant (P > 0.05) difference in ET or LBR between women with AMH <7.0 ng/ml (n = 72; ET, 10.7 ± 1.8 mm; LBR, 45.8% [33/72] versus those with AMH ≥7.0 ng/ml (n = 24; ET, 10.8 ± 1.7 mm; LBR, 37.5% [9/24]). Conclusions: High circulating AMH in PCOS women does not seem to negatively affect ET or LBRs during assisted reproductive technology.

Uterine distension media for outpatient hysteroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopy done in an outpatient setting is the 'gold standard' method for evaluating the uterine cavity. Media used to distend the uterine cavity include gas as carbon dioxide and liquid as saline that can be used at room temperature or warmed to body temperature. Both media offer advantages as well as disadvantages. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of gas (carbon dioxide) and liquid (normal saline) used for uterine distension during outpatient hysteroscopy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO on 28 April 2021. We checked references of relevant trials and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. CINAHL records and ongoing trials from the trial registries were included in the CENTRAL search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saline with carbon dioxide, as well as RCTs comparing saline at different temperatures, for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy done for any indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were patient tolerability and adverse events or complications related to the distending medium. Secondary outcomes were quality of the hysteroscopic view and duration of the procedure. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs (1946 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high: the main limitations were risk of bias due to absence of blinding due to the nature of the procedure, imprecision, and inconsistency. Saline versus carbon dioxide Analysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in pain scores during the procedure between saline and carbon dioxide, but the quality of evidence was low (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.02; 9 RCTs, N = 1705; I² = 86%). This translates to differences of 0.39 cm (lower) and 0.05 cm (higher) on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups in the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.42; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether saline decreases the need for analgesia compared to carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.99; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence). Saline compared to carbon dioxide is probably associated with fewer vasovagal reaction events (Peto OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; 6 RCTs, N = 1076; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer shoulder-tip pain events (Peto OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 4 RCTs, N = 623; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 10% of women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy experience a vasovagal reaction event with the use of carbon dioxide, this rate would be between 3% and 9% with the use of saline. Similarly, if the rate of shoulder-tip pain with carbon dioxide is 9%, it would be between 1% and 5% with saline. We are uncertain whether saline is similar to carbon dioxide in terms of endometrial bleeding (Peto OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.75; 2 RCTs, N = 349; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Infection was not reported by any study in this comparison. Saline may result in fewer procedures with an unsatisfactory hysteroscopic view than carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82; 5 RCTs, N = 1082; I² = 67%; low-quality evidence). The duration of the procedure was shorter with saline in three of the four studies that reported this outcome, and duration was similar in both arms in the fourth study. Warm saline versus room temperature saline Use of warm saline for uterine distension during office hysteroscopy may reduce pain scores when compared with room temperature saline (mean difference (MD) -1.14, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.73; 3 RCTs, N = 241; I² = 77%; low-quality evidence). Evidence is insufficient to show differences between groups in either the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.87; 1 RCT, N = 77; very low-quality evidence) or the need for analgesia (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.32; 1 RCT, N = 100; very low-quality evidence). Analysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in duration of the procedure between warm and room temperature saline, but the quality of evidence is low (MD 13.17 seconds, 95% CI -12.96 to 39.29; 2 RCTs, N = 141; I² = 21%). No cases of infection were reported in either group (1 RCT, N = 100). No other adverse events and no information on quality of the hysteroscopic view were reported by any study in this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was insufficient to show differences between different distension media used for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy in terms of patient tolerability, operator satisfaction, or duration of the procedure. However, saline was superior to carbon dioxide in producing fewer adverse events (shoulder-tip pain and vasovagal reaction).

Intrauterine injection of HCG before embryo transfer: a parallel, double-blind randomized trial.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does intrauterine administration of HCG before embryo transfer improve live birth rate during IVF cycles? DESIGN: A parallel, randomized controlled trial conducted between July 2018 and February 2020. Infertile women (n = 181) scheduled for fresh or vitrified-warmed embryo transfer after IVF carried out for any indication were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either HCG (500 IU in 0.1 ml of tissue culture media) or culture media (0.1 ml of tissue culture media) via intrauterine injection 4 min before embryo transfer. In both groups, an intrauterine insemination catheter was used for administering the medication. Primary outcome was live birth, with ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy as secondary outcomes. Analysis was based on intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Baseline and cycle characteristics were comparable between the two groups. In the control group, one woman with a confirmed clinical pregnancy was lost to follow-up. Live birth rates were 24% (22/90) in the HCG group versus 19% (17/90) in the control group (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.27). Clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy rates were 34% versus 26% (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.04) and 24% versus 19% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.27) in the HCG and the control groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Intrauterine injection of HCG before embryo transfer did not improve live birth rates in women undergoing IVF. As the study was designed to detect a 20% difference between groups, a smaller, clinically important difference could not be ruled out. Treatment outcomes were lower than expected in the control group.

Impairment of Uterine Contractility Is Associated with Unexplained Infertility.

The uterine junctional zone represents the juncture between endometrium and myometrium. The junctional zone is hormonally dependent and displays continuous peristaltic activity throughout the menstrual cycle in the nonpregnant state which is concerned with sperm transport and embryo implantation. Peristalsis may be observed using various invasive and noninvasive modalities, of which ultrasound is the most readily applied in the clinical setting. Women with pelvic pathology display alterations in uterine peristalsis which may contribute to infertility. Characterization of peristalsis in infertility subgroups, the development of a subjective peristalsis tool, and the application of potential therapeutics to an assisted reproductive treatment setting are the subject of ongoing investigation. Meta-analysis indicates a potential role for oxytocin antagonist in the improvement of fertility treatments.

How and Why to Define Unexplained Infertility?

Unexplained infertility represents up to 30% of all cases of infertility. It is a diagnosis of exclusion, where no cause for infertility may be identified in the investigation of the couple, be it anovulation, fallopian tube blockage, or severe male factor. Unexplained infertility therefore cannot be considered a diagnosis to which a specific treatment is directed, rather that it indicates a failure to reach a diagnosis of the true cause of infertility. In this review, we explore the evidence base and potential limitations of the current routine infertility assessment. We also aim to highlight the importance of considering the prognosis of each individual couple through the process of assessment and propose a reconsidered approach to treatment, targeted to the prognosis rather than the diagnosis. Ultimately, a better understanding of the mechanisms of infertility will reduce the number of couples diagnosed with "unexplained" infertility.