Published in

Karger Publishers, Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation, 2(88), p. 108-115, 2023

DOI: 10.1159/000529304

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

The Impact of Chronic Endometritis on Infertility: Prevalence, Reproductive Outcomes, and the Role of Hysteroscopy as a Screening Tool

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

<b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence of chronic endometritis (CE) in infertile women, its impact on reproductive outcomes, and the accuracy of hysteroscopy as a screening tool for CE. <b><i>Design:</i></b> This was a prospective observational study. <b><i>Participants:</i></b> Participants involved in this study were 514 asymptomatic patients with infertility. <b><i>Setting:</i></b> The review was conducted in a tertiary care center. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The participants underwent a hysteroscopy and endometrial biopsy (EMB). Antibiotics were given for cases of CE. We investigated the prevalence of CE in patients starting assisted reproductive technologies (ART) as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) in the ART cycle after hysteroscopy, EMB, and antibiotic treatment in cases of CE; the cumulative CPR in the subsequent 2 years after hysteroscopy and EMB; the sensitivity and specificity of hysteroscopy as a screening tool compared to EMB as the “gold standard” for diagnosing CE. <b><i>Results:</i></b> CE was identified in 2.8% of patients starting ART (11/393). CPRs did not differ significantly between patients with CE and the entire cohort of patients without CE in the subsequent ART cycle (OR: 0.43; 95% CI: 0.09–2.02) or in the 2 years after EMB (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.16–1.97). In a matched control comparison (with matching for age, basal FSH, and cause of infertility), CPR in patients with CE did not differ in the subsequent ART cycle (OR: 0.39; 95% CI: 0.09–1.61); however, their CPR in the 2 years after EMB was significantly lower (OR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.13–0.38). The sensitivity and specificity of hysteroscopy as a screening tool for diagnosing CE were 8.3% and 90.1%, respectively. <b><i>Limitations:</i></b> Due to our cohort’s low CE prevalence, we could not detect significant differences in CPRs. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> CE is rare in our studied population of asymptomatic patients starting ART. Hysteroscopy cannot replace EMB for diagnosing CE.