Tubal flushing with oil-based or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility:long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial

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% con fi dence 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 signi fi cantly 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 fl ushing 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). (Fertil Steril (R) 2020;114:155-62. (C) 2020 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Reasons for dropping out from a waiting list for in vitro fertilization

Objective: To determine the incidence of couples dropping out of the in vitro fertilization (IVF) waiting list and to describe the couples' reasons. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: Fertility center in an academic hospital. Patient(s): 674 women placed consecutively on the IVF waiting list between June 2000 and July 2003. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Number of dropouts and reasons for dropping out. Result(s): Follow-up information was collected in 2005 and 2008. Of the 674 couples on the waiting list, 87% started IVF, and 13% dropped out before starting their first IVF cycle. Follow-up data were obtained for 85 of 86 patients (98.8%): 37% dropped out because of spontaneous pregnancy, 36% for personal reasons (passive censoring), and 27% for medical reasons (active censoring). Most of the pregnancies occurred within 3 months after the patient had been placed on the waiting list (30 of 32, 94%). Of the 54 censored couples, four became pregnant. Conclusion(s): On a 6-month waiting list for IVF, 13% of the couples dropped out before starting treatment. The single most important reason for dropout was (spontaneous) pregnancy. Most of these pregnancies occurred within 3 months, which suggests that psychological factors such as stress relief after being placed on the waiting list might be operative. (Fertil Steril (R) 2010; 94:1713-6. (C) 2010 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

Tubal flushing with oil-based or water-based contrast at hysterosalpingography for infertility: long-term reproductive outcomes of a randomized trial

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)

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline