Clinical Trials Directory

Trials / Recruiting

RecruitingNCT05882188

The Cost-effectiveness of Hysterosalpingography Versus Hysterosalpingo-foam Sonography During Fertility Work-up

Is, in Infertile Women Undergoing a Basic Fertility Work-up, Tubal Flushing With Oil-based Contrast Medium During Hysterosalpingography (HSG) Cost-effective Compared to Tubal Flushing by Hysterosalpingo-foam Sonography (HyFoSy)?

Status
Recruiting
Phase
N/A
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1,102 (estimated)
Sponsor
Amsterdam UMC, location VUmc · Academic / Other
Sex
Female
Age
18 Years – 42 Years
Healthy volunteers
Not accepted

Summary

Hysterosalpingography (HSG) and hysterosalpingo-foam sonography are two methods to assess tubal patency during fertility work-up. This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG compared to tubal flushing during HyFoSy in women undergoing fertility work-up. The hypothesis is that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG leads to more live births than tubal flushing during HyFoSy.

Detailed description

Background: The diagnostic work-up for infertility generally includes estimating the risk for tubal pathology and if indicated assessing tubal patency. Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed with hysterosalpingography (HSG). In previous studies it has been demonstrated that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG resulted in more ongoing pregnancies than when HSG is performed with water-based contrast. HyFoSy is a more patient friendly alternative for HSG. Up till now, the fertility enhancing effect of tubal flushing with ExEm Foam during HyFoSy has only been studied in relatively small and observational studies. Objectives:The main objective of this study is to determine whether tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG results into more pregnancies leading to live births when compared to tubal flushing with ExEm Foam during HyFoSy, and whether this approach is cost-effective. In this study the safety of both strategies will also be compared. Rationale: The hypothesis is that tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG leads to more live births compared to tubal flushing with ExEm Foam during HyFoSy in women with an indication for tubal patency testing. If more live births are achieved, expensive fertility treatments will be less needed, which makes tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG a cost-effective strategy. Study design: This study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with an economic analysis alongside it. Women with indication for tubal patency testing will be randomized to tubal flushing with oil-based contrast during HSG and tubal flushing with ExEm Foam during HyFoSy.

Conditions

Interventions

TypeNameDescription
PROCEDUREOil-based contrastoil-based contrast fluid, Lipiodol Ultra Fluid. Lipiodol is a solution of iodinated ethyl esters of fatty acids of poppyseed oil. Equivalent to 480 mg iodine per ml. The maximum dosage is 15ml. Lipiodol is produced by Guerbet, France. Lipiodol is FDA approved and registered as contrast agent for HSG.
PROCEDUREExEm FoamExEm Foam which is created by mixing 5ml ExEm-gel and 5ml of purified water. ExEm-gel contains hydroxyethylcellulose and glycerol. The ExEm Foam is distributed by IQ Medical Ventures, the Netherlands. ExEm Foam is FDA approved, CE marked and registered as contrast agent for HyFoSy.

Timeline

Start date
2023-09-22
Primary completion
2026-12-01
Completion
2027-06-01
First posted
2023-05-31
Last updated
2024-04-24

Locations

1 site across 1 country: Netherlands

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT05882188. Inclusion in this directory is not an endorsement.