The Impact of Chronic Endometritis on Infertility: Prevalence, Reproductive Outcomes, and the Role of Hysteroscopy as a Screening Tool
Brecht Geysenbergh, Anne‐Sophie Boes, Céline Bafort, Anne‐Sophie Van Rompuy, Sara Neyens, Sharon Lie Fong, Sophie Debrock, Joris Vriens, Peter De Loecker, Eline Dancet, Thomas D’Hooghe, Karen Peeraer
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: 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. DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study. PARTICIPANTS: Participants involved in this study were 514 asymptomatic patients with infertility. SETTING: The review was conducted in a tertiary care center. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. LIMITATIONS: Due to our cohort's low CE prevalence, we could not detect significant differences in CPRs. CONCLUSION: CE is rare in our studied population of asymptomatic patients starting ART. Hysteroscopy cannot replace EMB for diagnosing CE.