Oil-based versus water-based contrast media for hysterosalpingography in infertile women of advanced age, with ovulation disorders or a high risk for tubal pathology: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (H2Oil2 study).
Cost–benefit analysis
Ethiodized oil
Hysterosalpingography (HSG)
Infertility
Oil-based contrast
Ongoing pregnancy
Tubal patency testing
Water-based contrast
Journal
BMC women's health
ISSN: 1472-6874
Titre abrégé: BMC Womens Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 04 2022
18 04 2022
Historique:
received:
28
03
2022
accepted:
07
04
2022
entrez:
19
4
2022
pubmed:
20
4
2022
medline:
21
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG) increases ongoing pregnancy and subsequent live birth rates when compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast. It is currently unclear whether an HSG with oil-based contrast also results in more ongoing pregnancies and live births in women of advanced age, women with ovulation disorders, and women with potential tubal pathology when compared to an HSG with water-based contrast. We plan an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying three groups of infertile women who have an indication for tubal patency testing according to their treating physician and additionally; (1) are 39 years of age or older, (2) have an ovulation disorder or (3) have a high risk for tubal pathology based on their medical history. Women with an allergy for iodinated contrast medium are excluded, as are women with diabetes, hyperprolactinemia or untreated hyper- or hypothyroidism, and women with a partner with severe male infertility. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated to the intervention, tubal flushing with the use of oil-based contrast during HSG or the control group, tubal flushing with the use of water-based contrast during HSG in a 1:1 ratio by the web-based system Castor. The primary endpoint will be ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth with conception within six months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are other pregnancy outcomes, used fertility treatments, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. Based on the expected ongoing pregnancy rate of 17% in the control group and 27% in the intervention group, the sample size will be 930 women (465 per group). Study inclusion is expected to be complete in four years. This multicentre RCT will establish whether, for women of advanced age, women with ovulatory disease, and women who have a high risk for tubal pathology, there is a fertility enhancing effect of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG and whether the use of this contrast medium is cost-effective. Trial Registration The study was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on August 1st 2019 as 'H2Oil2' (reference number NL7925, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7925 ).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In women with unexplained infertility, tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during hysterosalpingography (HSG) increases ongoing pregnancy and subsequent live birth rates when compared to tubal flushing with water-based contrast. It is currently unclear whether an HSG with oil-based contrast also results in more ongoing pregnancies and live births in women of advanced age, women with ovulation disorders, and women with potential tubal pathology when compared to an HSG with water-based contrast.
METHODS
We plan an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial (RCT) studying three groups of infertile women who have an indication for tubal patency testing according to their treating physician and additionally; (1) are 39 years of age or older, (2) have an ovulation disorder or (3) have a high risk for tubal pathology based on their medical history. Women with an allergy for iodinated contrast medium are excluded, as are women with diabetes, hyperprolactinemia or untreated hyper- or hypothyroidism, and women with a partner with severe male infertility. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated to the intervention, tubal flushing with the use of oil-based contrast during HSG or the control group, tubal flushing with the use of water-based contrast during HSG in a 1:1 ratio by the web-based system Castor. The primary endpoint will be ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth with conception within six months after randomization. Secondary outcomes are other pregnancy outcomes, used fertility treatments, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. Based on the expected ongoing pregnancy rate of 17% in the control group and 27% in the intervention group, the sample size will be 930 women (465 per group). Study inclusion is expected to be complete in four years.
DISCUSSION
This multicentre RCT will establish whether, for women of advanced age, women with ovulatory disease, and women who have a high risk for tubal pathology, there is a fertility enhancing effect of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG and whether the use of this contrast medium is cost-effective. Trial Registration The study was prospectively registered in the Netherlands Trial Register on August 1st 2019 as 'H2Oil2' (reference number NL7925, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7925 ).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35436944
doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01707-z
pii: 10.1186/s12905-022-01707-z
pmc: PMC9016997
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Water
059QF0KO0R
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
123Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Anesth Analg. 1996 Mar;82(3):445-51
pubmed: 8623940
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Oct 15;10:CD003718
pubmed: 33053612
Hum Reprod Update. 2011 Nov-Dec;17(6):848-60
pubmed: 21652599
Fertil Steril. 2005 Jun;83(6):1814-21
pubmed: 15950655
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 Jan 15;2020(1):hoz045
pubmed: 31976383
Hum Reprod. 2005 Jun;20(6):1636-41
pubmed: 15760951
PLoS Med. 2012;9(12):e1001356
pubmed: 23271957
Reprod Biomed Online. 2021 Jun;42(6):1119-1129
pubmed: 33931367
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022 May 23;:1-7
pubmed: 35603539
Acta Eur Fertil. 1994 May-Jun;25(3):203-6
pubmed: 7900503
Radiology. 1994 May;191(2):513-7
pubmed: 8153331
Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jan;101(1):109-13
pubmed: 12517654
Obstet Gynecol. 1986 Jul;68(1):6-9
pubmed: 3014408
Fertil Steril. 1980 Apr;33(4):407-10
pubmed: 7189154
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jun;133(6):e377-e384
pubmed: 31135764
Fertil Steril. 2020 Jul;114(1):155-162
pubmed: 32553471
Fertil Steril. 2006 Nov;86(5 Suppl 1):S111-4
pubmed: 17055802
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021 Apr;303(4):999-1007
pubmed: 33211175
Hum Reprod. 2009 Dec;24(12):3096-107
pubmed: 19684046
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Aug;54(2):172-181
pubmed: 30740799
Fertil Steril. 1992 Sep;58(3):511-7
pubmed: 1325928
Fertil Steril. 2018 Jul 1;110(1):153-160.e3
pubmed: 29908778
N Engl J Med. 2017 May 25;376(21):2043-2052
pubmed: 28520519
Fertil Steril. 2008 Jan;89(1):1-16
pubmed: 18155200
Fertil Steril. 1983 Nov;40(5):604-6
pubmed: 6313436
Hum Reprod. 2019 Dec 1;34(12):2391-2398
pubmed: 31887222
Hum Reprod. 2017 Sep 1;32(9):1786-1801
pubmed: 29117321
Reprod Biomed Online. 2021 Jan;42(1):150-157
pubmed: 33077355
Sex Transm Infect. 2019 Jun;95(4):300-306
pubmed: 30606817
Fertil Steril. 1982 Mar;37(3):384-8
pubmed: 7060789
Fertil Steril. 1992 Apr;57(4):731-41
pubmed: 1555683
Value Health. 2014 Nov;17(7):A550
pubmed: 27201788
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 9;12(11):e0187477
pubmed: 29121647