No abstract

The study showed no benefit for use of misoprostol prior to IUD insertion. However, there is a tendency of possible harm regarding side-effects. Therefore, we would not recommend standard pretreatment with misoprostol. The trial was registered in the European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT 2006-006897-60.

STUDY QUESTION Does endometrial scratching in women with one failed IVF/ICSI treatment affect the chance of a live birth of the subsequent fresh IVF/ICSI cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER In this study, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch group, with a likely certainty range between −0.7% and +9.9%. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Since the first suggestion that endometrial scratching might improve embryo implantation during IVF/ICSI, many clinical trials have been conducted. However, due to limitations in sample size and study quality, it remains unclear whether endometrial scratching improves IVF/ICSI outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The SCRaTCH trial was a non-blinded randomised controlled trial in women with one unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycle and assessed whether a single endometrial scratch using an endometrial biopsy catheter would lead to a higher live birth rate after the subsequent IVF/ICSI treatment compared to no scratch. The study took place in 8 academic and 24 general hospitals. Participants were randomised between January 2016 and July 2018 by a web-based randomisation programme. Secondary outcomes included cumulative 12-month ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women with one previous failed IVF/ICSI treatment and planning a second fresh IVF/ICSI treatment were eligible. In total, 933 participants out of 1065 eligibles were included (participation rate 88%). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE After the fresh transfer, 4.6% more live births were observed in the scratch compared to control group (110/465 versus 88/461, respectively, risk ratio (RR) 1.24 [95% CI 0.96–1.59]). These data are consistent with a true difference of between −0.7% and +9.9% (95% CI), indicating that while the largest proportion of the 95% CI is positive, scratching could have no or even a small negative effect. Biochemical pregnancy loss and miscarriage rate did not differ between the two groups: in the scratch group 27/153 biochemical pregnancy losses and 14/126 miscarriages occurred, while this was 19/130 and 17/111 for the control group (RR 1.21 (95% CI 0.71–2.07) and RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.38–1.40), respectively). After 12 months of follow-up, 5.1% more live births were observed in the scratch group (202/467 versus 178/466), of which the true difference most likely lies between −1.2% and +11.4% (95% CI). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This study was not blinded. Knowledge of allocation may have been an incentive for participants allocated to the scratch group to continue treatment in situations where they may otherwise have cancelled or stopped. In addition, this study was powered to detect a difference in live birth rate of 9%. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The results of this study are an incentive for further assessment of the efficacy and clinical implications of endometrial scratching. If a true effect exists, it may be smaller than previously anticipated or may be limited to specific groups of women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Studying this will require larger sample sizes, which will be provided by the ongoing international individual participant data-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42017079120). At present, endometrial scratching should not be performed outside of clinical trials. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by ZonMW, the Dutch organisation for funding healthcare research. J.S.E. Laven reports grants and personal fees from AnshLabs (Webster, Tx, USA), Ferring (Hoofddorp, The Netherlands) and Ministry of Health (CIBG, The Hague, The Netherlands) outside the submitted work. A.E.P. Cantineau reports ‘other’ from Ferring BV, personal fees from Up to date Hyperthecosis, ‘other’ from Theramex BV, outside the submitted work. E.R. Groenewoud reports grants from Titus Health Care during the conduct of the study. A.M. van Heusden reports personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees from Ferring, personal fees from Goodlife, outside the submitted work. F.J.M. Broekmans reports personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, personal fees as Member of the external advisory for Gedeon Richter, Belgium, personal fees from Educational activities for Ferring BV, The Netherlands, grants from Research support grant Merck Serono, grants from Research support grant Ferring, personal fees from Advisory and consultancy work Roche, outside the submitted work. C.B. Lambalk reports grants from Ferring, grants from Merck, grants from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL5193/NTR 5342). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 31 July 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 26 January 2016.

We validated and refined a new, simple, visual assessment technique and demonstrated that it is superior to a woman's subjective assessment of menstrual blood loss and the occurrence of anemia for predicting menorrhagia, even if it is performed only once. We also demonstrated that the volume that clots contribute to menstruation is not as large as many clinicians believe. With this technique, the quality of therapy can be enhanced by making it more adequate and rational.

Study question Does septum resection improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus? Summary answer In women with a septate uterus, septum resection does not increase live birth rate nor does it decrease the rates of pregnancy loss or preterm birth, compared with expectant management. What is known already The septate uterus is the most common uterine anomaly with an estimated prevalence of 0.2–2.3% in women of reproductive age, depending on the classification system. The definition of the septate uterus has been a long-lasting and ongoing subject of debate, and currently two classification systems are used worldwide. Women with a septate uterus may be at increased risk of subfertility, pregnancy loss, preterm birth and foetal malpresentation. Based on low quality evidence, current guidelines recommend removal of the intrauterine septum or, more cautiously, state that the procedure should be evaluated in future studies. Study design, size, duration We performed an international multicentre cohort study in which we identified women mainly retrospectively by searching in electronic patient files, medical records and databases within the time frame of January 2000 until August 2018. Searching of the databases, files and records took place between January 2016 and July 2018. By doing so, we collected data on 257 women with a septate uterus in 21 centres in the Netherlands, USA and UK. Participants/materials, setting, methods We included women with a septate uterus, defined by the treating physician, according to the classification system at that time. The women were ascertained among those with a history of subfertility, pregnancy loss, preterm birth or foetal malpresentation or during a routine diagnostic procedure. Allocation to septum resection or expectant management was dependent on the reproductive history and severity of the disease. We excluded women who did not have a wish to conceive at time of diagnosis. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included pregnancy loss, preterm birth and foetal malpresentation. All conceptions during follow-up were registered but for the comparative analyses, only the first live birth or ongoing pregnancy was included. To evaluate differences in live birth and ongoing pregnancy, we used Cox proportional regression to calculate hazard rates (HRs) and 95% CI. To evaluate differences in pregnancy loss, preterm birth and foetal malpresentation, we used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% CI. We adjusted all reproductive outcomes for possible confounders. Main results and the role of chance In total, 257 women were included in the cohort. Of these, 151 women underwent a septum resection and 106 women had expectant management. The median follow-up time was 46 months. During this time, live birth occurred in 80 women following a septum resection (53.0%) compared to 76 women following expectant management (71.7%) (HR 0.71 95% CI 0.49–1.02) and ongoing pregnancy occurred in 89 women who underwent septum resection (58.9%), compared to 80 women who had expectant management (75.5%) (HR 0.74 (95% CI 0.52–1.06)). Pregnancy loss occurred in 51 women who underwent septum resection (46.8%) versus 31 women who had expectant management (34.4%) (OR 1.58 (0.81–3.09)), while preterm birth occurred in 26 women who underwent septum resection (29.2%) versus 13 women who had expectant management (16.7%) (OR 1.26 (95% CI 0.52–3.04)) and foetal malpresentation occurred in 17 women who underwent septum resection (19.1%) versus 27 women who had expectant management (34.6%) (OR 0.56 (95% CI 0.24–1.33)). Limitations, reasons for caution Our retrospective study has a less robust design compared with a randomized controlled trial. Over the years, the ideas about the definition of the septate uterus has changed, but since the 257 women with a septate uterus included in this study had been diagnosed by their treating physician according to the leading classification system at that time, the data of this study reflect the daily practice of recent decades. Despite correcting for the most relevant patient characteristics, our estimates might not be free of residual confounding. Wider implications of the findings Our results suggest that septum resection, a procedure that is widely offered and associated with financial costs for society, healthcare systems or individuals, does not lead to improved reproductive outcomes compared to expectant management for women with a septate uterus. The results of this study need to be confirmed in randomized clinical trials. Study funding/competing interest(s) A travel for JFWR to Chicago was supported by the Jo Kolk Studyfund. Otherwise, no specific funding was received for this study. The Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre, Groningen, received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring Pharmaceutical Company unrelated to the present study. BWM reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck, personal fees from Guerbet, other payment from Guerbet and grants from Merck, outside the submitted work. The other authors declare no conficts of interest. Trial registration number N/A