Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel), Brussels, Belgium.
Research Group Reproduction and Immunology (REIM), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Hum Reprod. 2020 May 1;35(5):1090-1098. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deaa018.
Does intentional endometrial injury (scratching) during the follicular phase of ovarian stimulation (OS) increase the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) in ART?
CPR did not vary between the endometrial injury and the control group, but the trial was underpowered due to early termination because of a higher clinical miscarriage rate observed in the endometrial injury arm after a prespecified interim analysis.
Intentional endometrial injury has been put forward as an inexpensive clinical tool capable of enhancing endometrial receptivity. However, despite its widespread use, the benefit of endometrial scratching remains controversial, with several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) being unable to confirm its added value. So far, most research has focused on endometrial scratching during the luteal phase of the cycle preceding the one with embryo transfer (ET), while only a few studies investigated in-cycle injury during the follicular phase of OS. Also, the persistence of a scratch effect in subsequent treatment cycles remains unclear and possible harms have been insufficiently studied.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This RCT was performed in a tertiary hospital setting between 3 April 2014 and 8 October 2017. A total of 200 women (100 per study arm) undergoing IVF/ICSI in a GnRH antagonist suppressed cycle followed by fresh ET were included.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were randomized with a 1:1 allocation ratio to either undergo a pipelle endometrial biopsy between Days 6 and 8 of OS or to be in the control group.The primary outcome was CPR. Secondary outcomes included biochemical pregnancy rate, live birth rate (LBR), early pregnancy loss (biochemical pregnancy losses and clinical miscarriages), excessive procedure pain/bleeding and cumulative reproductive outcomes within 6 months of the study cycle.
The RCT was stopped prematurely by the trial team after the second prespecified interim analysis raised safety concerns, namely a higher clinical miscarriage rate in the intervention group. The intention-to-treat CPR was similar between the biopsy and the control arm (respectively, 44 versus 40%, P = 0.61, risk difference = 3.6 with 95% confidence interval = -10.1;17.3), as was the LBR (respectively, 32 versus 36%, P = 0.52). The incidence of a biochemical pregnancy loss was comparable between both groups (10% in the intervention group versus 15% in the control, P = 0.49), but clinical miscarriages occurred significantly more frequent in the biopsy group (25% versus 8%, P = 0.032). In the intervention group, 3% of the patients experienced excessive procedure pain and 5% bleeding. The cumulative LBR taking into account all conceptions (spontaneous or following ART) within 6 months of randomization was not significantly different between the biopsy and the control group (54% versus 60%, respectively, P = 0.43).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The trial was stopped prematurely due to safety concerns after the inclusion of 200 of the required 360 patients. Not reaching the predefined sample size implies that definite conclusions on the outcome parameters cannot be drawn. Furthermore, the pragmatic design of the study may have limited the detection of specific subgroups of women who may benefit from endometrial scratching.
Intentional endometrial injury during the follicular phase of OS warrants further attention in future research, as it may be harmful. These findings should be taken in consideration together with the growing evidence from other RCTs that scratching may not be beneficial.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by 'Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek' (FWO, Flanders, Belgium, 11M9415N, 1524417N). None of the authors have a conflict of interest to declare with regard to this study.
在卵巢刺激(OS)的卵泡期进行有意的子宫内膜损伤(搔刮)是否会提高辅助生殖技术(ART)的临床妊娠率(CPR)?
CPR 在子宫内膜损伤组和对照组之间没有差异,但由于在预先指定的中期分析后观察到子宫内膜损伤组的临床流产率更高,该试验提前终止,因此效力不足。
有意的子宫内膜损伤已被提出作为一种廉价的临床工具,能够增强子宫内膜的接受性。然而,尽管它被广泛应用,但子宫内膜搔刮的益处仍然存在争议,最近的几项随机对照试验(RCT)都无法证实其附加价值。到目前为止,大多数研究都集中在胚胎移植(ET)前一个周期的黄体期进行子宫内膜搔刮,而只有少数研究在 OS 的卵泡期进行周期内损伤。此外,后续治疗周期中刮痕效应的持续存在尚不清楚,可能的危害也研究不足。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:这项 RCT 在 2014 年 4 月 3 日至 2017 年 10 月 8 日期间在一家三级医院进行。共有 200 名接受 GnRH 拮抗剂抑制周期后的 IVF/ICSI 并随后进行新鲜 ET 的女性被纳入研究。
参与者/材料、设置、方法:参与者按照 1:1 的比例随机分配到 OS 的第 6-8 天进行 pipelle 子宫内膜活检或对照组。主要结局是 CPR。次要结局包括生化妊娠率、活产率(生化妊娠丢失和临床流产)、早期妊娠丢失(生化妊娠丢失和临床流产)、过度程序疼痛/出血和研究周期后 6 个月内的累积生殖结局。
在第二次预先指定的中期分析提出安全问题后,试验小组提前停止了 RCT,即干预组的临床流产率更高。意向治疗 CPR 在活检组和对照组之间相似(分别为 44%和 40%,P=0.61,风险差异为 3.6,95%置信区间为-10.1;17.3),活产率也相似(分别为 32%和 36%,P=0.52)。两组生化妊娠丢失的发生率相似(干预组 10%,对照组 15%,P=0.49),但临床流产在活检组更常见(25%对 8%,P=0.032)。在干预组中,3%的患者经历了过度的程序疼痛,5%的患者出现了出血。考虑到随机分组后所有妊娠(自然妊娠或 ART 妊娠),活产率在活检组和对照组之间没有显著差异(分别为 54%和 60%,P=0.43)。
局限性、谨慎的原因:由于在纳入 360 名所需患者中的 200 名后出现安全问题,试验提前停止。未达到预定的样本量意味着不能对结局参数得出明确的结论。此外,研究的实用设计可能限制了特定亚组女性受益于子宫内膜搔刮的具体检测。
在 OS 的卵泡期进行有意的子宫内膜损伤需要在未来的研究中进一步关注,因为它可能是有害的。这些发现应与其他 RCT 的研究结果一起考虑,这些结果表明搔刮可能没有益处。
研究资助/利益冲突:这项研究由“科学研究基金会”(FWO,比利时佛兰德,11M9415N,1524417N)资助。没有作者在这项研究中有与该研究相关的利益冲突。