The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review
Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review
Background: In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation ‘add-on’ that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use. Objectives: (1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the ‘Endometrial Scratch Trial’) and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle. Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1: 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials. Setting: Sixteen UK fertility units. Participants: Women aged 18–37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m 2 and previous trauma to the endometrium. Interventions: Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks’ gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs. Results: One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval –4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval –£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22). Limitations: A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect. Conclusions: We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population.
COST–BENEFIT ANALYSIS, FEMALE, HUMANS, INTENTION-TO-TREAT ANALYSIS, IVF, LIVE BIRTH, LUTEAL PHASE, META-ANALYSIS, PREGNANCY, QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, SPERM INJECTIONS, INTRACYTOPLASMIC, STILLBIRTH, SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, UK
1366-5278
vii-122
Metwally, Mostafa
2e4e46cc-45f6-4428-9696-2382412040b1
Chatters, Robin
751cd9f6-f06f-4f96-b3e9-ece8aed53468
Pye, Clare
dc52b516-588e-4f8e-9523-107f8a9c4b0e
Dimairo, Munya
58eb6c98-8929-46e8-a6e5-1be26cd9f0fe
White, David
974028d7-e28d-4c9d-82af-b1bb7ebf0762
Walters, Stephen
0ba700a1-b9ea-4ea6-b9b3-8ba5fde6bb02
Cohen, Judith
3cbfea7c-62f5-4bcc-9b4c-3e897e34e861
Young, Tracey
bb702d4e-7de6-4e2a-a51b-6d6b8ba1075e
Cheong, Ying
4efbba2a-3036-4dce-82f1-8b4017952c83
Laird, Susan
a0b981f8-0e47-43e8-8e39-e7cee07652e6
Mohiyiddeen, Lamiya
c763abbc-2029-4a11-919b-b55732fa1d77
Chater, Tim
2ab7a8fc-dfb8-4f40-9166-e5f8c5bd307f
Pemberton, Kirsty
935dfe97-2eec-444b-aa6a-9c9dc36e3c12
Turtle, Chris
62c0fcbb-0f02-4285-8877-87978a283e12
Hall, Jamie
eae7c42e-8f8e-48d7-a6ad-bd20b50ca4e0
Taylor, Liz
8175fe62-9aec-4f3b-a82b-93ce7663a88f
Brian, Kate
082408cb-0139-4b17-bee0-3babd205644c
Sizer, Anya
ead464ac-7869-4ab3-a9f3-44d243197d8e
Hunter, Helen
a56cc525-3a48-449e-b464-732ad9029050
Metwally, Mostafa
2e4e46cc-45f6-4428-9696-2382412040b1
Chatters, Robin
751cd9f6-f06f-4f96-b3e9-ece8aed53468
Pye, Clare
dc52b516-588e-4f8e-9523-107f8a9c4b0e
Dimairo, Munya
58eb6c98-8929-46e8-a6e5-1be26cd9f0fe
White, David
974028d7-e28d-4c9d-82af-b1bb7ebf0762
Walters, Stephen
0ba700a1-b9ea-4ea6-b9b3-8ba5fde6bb02
Cohen, Judith
3cbfea7c-62f5-4bcc-9b4c-3e897e34e861
Young, Tracey
bb702d4e-7de6-4e2a-a51b-6d6b8ba1075e
Cheong, Ying
4efbba2a-3036-4dce-82f1-8b4017952c83
Laird, Susan
a0b981f8-0e47-43e8-8e39-e7cee07652e6
Mohiyiddeen, Lamiya
c763abbc-2029-4a11-919b-b55732fa1d77
Chater, Tim
2ab7a8fc-dfb8-4f40-9166-e5f8c5bd307f
Pemberton, Kirsty
935dfe97-2eec-444b-aa6a-9c9dc36e3c12
Turtle, Chris
62c0fcbb-0f02-4285-8877-87978a283e12
Hall, Jamie
eae7c42e-8f8e-48d7-a6ad-bd20b50ca4e0
Taylor, Liz
8175fe62-9aec-4f3b-a82b-93ce7663a88f
Brian, Kate
082408cb-0139-4b17-bee0-3babd205644c
Sizer, Anya
ead464ac-7869-4ab3-a9f3-44d243197d8e
Hunter, Helen
a56cc525-3a48-449e-b464-732ad9029050

Metwally, Mostafa, Chatters, Robin, Pye, Clare, Dimairo, Munya, White, David, Walters, Stephen, Cohen, Judith, Young, Tracey, Cheong, Ying, Laird, Susan, Mohiyiddeen, Lamiya, Chater, Tim, Pemberton, Kirsty, Turtle, Chris, Hall, Jamie, Taylor, Liz, Brian, Kate, Sizer, Anya and Hunter, Helen (2022) Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review. Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 26 (10), vii-122. (doi:10.3310/JNZT9406).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation ‘add-on’ that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use. Objectives: (1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the ‘Endometrial Scratch Trial’) and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle. Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1: 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials. Setting: Sixteen UK fertility units. Participants: Women aged 18–37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m 2 and previous trauma to the endometrium. Interventions: Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks’ gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs. Results: One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval –4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval –£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22). Limitations: A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect. Conclusions: We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population.

Text
3038707 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (3MB)

More information

e-pub ahead of print date: 1 January 2022
Published date: January 2022
Additional Information: Funding Information: Declared competing interests of authors: Stephen Walters is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator (2018 to present) and was a member of the following committees during the project: NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Trials and Evaluation Committee (2011–17), NIHR HTA Commissioning Strategy Group (2012–17), NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Committee (2020 to present) and the NIHR Pre-doctoral Fellowship Committee (2019 to present). He also reports book royalties from Wiley-Blackwell (Hoboken, NJ, USA), and fees from acting as an external examiner at various higher education institutes. Clare Pye reports grants from NIHR for studies NIHR128137 and NIHR128969. David White reports grants from NIHR for the following studies: HTA 15/35/03, HTA 16/81/01, Heath and Social Care Delivery Research 15/136/07, RP-PG-1016-20006, Horizon 2020 – 755094, NIHR128969 and NIHR128137. Funding Information: The research reported in this issue of the journal was funded by the HTA programme as project number 14/08/45. The contractual start date was in December 2015. The draft report began editorial review in October 2020 and was accepted for publication in May 2021. The authors have been wholly responsible for all data collection, analysis and interpretation, and for writing up their work. The HTA editors and publisher have tried to ensure the accuracy of the authors’ report and would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive comments on the draft document. However, they do not accept liability for damages or losses arising from material published in this report. Funding Information: This report presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research NIHR. The views ex ressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Metwally et al.
Keywords: COST–BENEFIT ANALYSIS, FEMALE, HUMANS, INTENTION-TO-TREAT ANALYSIS, IVF, LIVE BIRTH, LUTEAL PHASE, META-ANALYSIS, PREGNANCY, QUALITATIVE RESEARCH, SPERM INJECTIONS, INTRACYTOPLASMIC, STILLBIRTH, SYSTEMATIC REVIEW, UK

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 468121
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/468121
ISSN: 1366-5278
PURE UUID: d56ae5ad-6cf0-4164-9dfc-aa4b42bdd815
ORCID for Ying Cheong: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7687-4597

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 02 Aug 2022 17:15
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 03:13

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Mostafa Metwally
Author: Robin Chatters
Author: Clare Pye
Author: Munya Dimairo
Author: David White
Author: Stephen Walters
Author: Judith Cohen
Author: Tracey Young
Author: Ying Cheong ORCID iD
Author: Susan Laird
Author: Lamiya Mohiyiddeen
Author: Tim Chater
Author: Kirsty Pemberton
Author: Chris Turtle
Author: Jamie Hall
Author: Liz Taylor
Author: Kate Brian
Author: Anya Sizer
Author: Helen Hunter

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×