Recommendations for good practice in ultrasound - oocyte pick-up: The practice

STUDY QUESTION What is good practice in ultrasound (US), and more specifically during the different stages of transvaginal oocyte retrieval, based on evidence in the literature and expert opinion on US practice in ART? SUMMARY ANSWER This document provides good practice recommendations covering technical aspects of US-guided transvaginal oocyte retrieval (oocyte pick up: OPU) formulated by a group of experts after considering the published data, and including the preparatory stage of OPU, the actual procedure and post-procedure care. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY US-guided transvaginal OPU is a widely performed procedure, but standards for best practice are not available. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A working group (WG) collaborated on writing recommendations on the practical aspects of transvaginal OPU. A literature search for evidence of the key aspects of the procedure was carried out. Selected papers (n = 190) relevant to the topic were analyzed by the WG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The WG members considered the following key points in the papers: whether US practice standards were explained; to what extent the OPU technique was described and whether complications or incidents and how to prevent such events were reported. In the end, only 108 papers could be used to support the recommendations in this document, which focused on transvaginal OPU. Laparoscopic OPU, transabdominal OPU and OPU for IVM were outside the scope of the study. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE There was a scarcity of studies on the actual procedural OPU technique. The document presents general recommendations for transvaginal OPU, and specific recommendations for its different stages, including prior to, during and after the procedure. Most evidence focussed on comparing different equipment (needles) and on complications and risks, including the risk of infection. For these topics, the recommendations were largely based on the results of the studies. Recommendations are provided on equipment and materials, possible risks and complications, audit and training. One of the major research gaps was training and competence. This paper has also outlined a list of research priorities (including clarification on the value or full blood count, antibiotic prophylaxis and flushing, and the need for training and proficiency). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The recommendations of this paper were mostly based on clinical expertise, as at present, only a few clinical trials have focused on the oocyte retrieval techniques, and almost all available data are observational. In addition, studies focusing on OPU were heterogeneous with significant difference in techniques used, which made drafting conclusions and recommendations based on these studies even more challenging. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS These recommendations complement previous guidelines on the management of good laboratory practice in ART. Some useful troubleshooting/checklist recommendations are given for easy implementation in clinical practice. These recommendations aim to contribute to the standardization of a rather common procedure that is still performed with great heterogeneity. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The meetings of the WG were funded by ESHRE. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Efficacy of a remote web-based lung ultrasound training for nephrologists and cardiologists: A lust trial sub-project

Within the framework of the LUST trial (LUng water by Ultra-Sound guided Treatment to prevent death and cardiovascular events in high-risk end-stage renal disease patients), the European Renal and Cardiovascular Medicine (EURECA-m) working group of the European Renal Association-European Dialysis Transplant Association established a central core lab aimed at training and certifying nephrologists and cardiologists participating in this trial. All participants were trained by an expert trainer with an entirely web-based programme. Thirty nephrologists and 14 cardiologists successfully completed the training. At the end of training, a set of 47 lung ultrasound (US) videos was provided to trainees who were asked to estimate the number of B-lines in each video. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the whole series of 47 videos between each trainee and the expert trainer was high (average 0.81 ± 0.21) and >0.70 in all but five cases. After further training, the five underperforming trainees achieved satisfactory agreement with the expert trainer (average post-retraining ICC 0.74 ± 0.14). The Bland-Altman plot showed virtually no bias (difference between the mean 0.03) and strict 95% limits of agreement lines (−1.52 and 1.45 US B-lines). Only four cases overlapped but did not exceed the same limits. Likewise, the Spearman correlation coefficient applied to the same data series was very high (r = 0.979, P < 0.0001). Nephrologists and cardiologists can be effectively trained to measure lung congestion by an entirely web-based programme. This web-based training programme ensures high-quality standardization of US B-line measurements and represents a simple, costless and effective preparatory step for clinical trials targeting lung congestion