Follicular flushing leads to higher oocyte yield in monofollicular IVF: a randomized controlled trial
- PMID: 32856073
- PMCID: PMC7518713
- DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deaa165
Follicular flushing leads to higher oocyte yield in monofollicular IVF: a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Study question: Does follicular flushing increase the number of mature oocytes in monofollicular IVF?
Summary answer: Follicular flushing increases the number of mature oocytes in monofollicular IVF.
What is known already: Flushing increases neither the oocyte yield nor the pregnancy rate in polyfollicular IVF or in poor responder patients. In monofollicular IVF, the effect of flushing has so far been addressed by two studies: (i) a prospective study with minimal stimulation IVF demonstrated an increased oocyte yield, and (ii) a retrospective study with natural cycle (NC)-IVF showed an increased oocyte yield and an increased transfer rate.
Study design, size, duration: Randomized controlled trial including 164 women who were randomized for either aspiration with or without flushing from 2016 to 2019.
Participants/materials, setting, methods: Infertile women 18-42 years of age with an indication for IVF treatment at a university-based infertility unit. Women undergoing monofollicular IVF were randomized to either follicular aspiration only or follicular aspiration directly followed by five follicular flushes at a 1:1 ratio. The intervention was done without anaesthesia, using a gauge 19 single-lumen needle. Flushing volume was calculated (sphere formula) based on the size of the follicle.
Main results and the role of chance: A total of 164 women were included; 81 were allocated to 'aspiration only' and 83 to additional 'flushing'. Primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat: oocyte yield, defined as the collected mature oocyte rate, was higher (n = 64/83, 77.1%) in the flushing group compared to the aspiration only group (n = 48/81, 59.3%, adjusted risk difference (RD): 18.2% (95% CI 3.9-31.7%), P-value = 0.02). In the flushing group, most oocytes were retrieved within the first three flushes (63/83, 75.8%). Fertilization rate was higher in the flushing group (n = 53/83, 63.9% vs n = 38/81, 46.9%; adjusted RD: 16.8% (96% CI 1.5-31.4%), P = 0.045). Transfer rate was also higher in the flushing group (n = 52/83, 62.7% vs n = 38/81, 46.9%; RD: 15.71 (95% CI 0.3-30.3%)), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.06). The clinical pregnancy rate n = 9/83 versus n = 9/81 (RD: -0.3% (95% CI -9.9% to 9.5%)) and live birth rate n = 7/83 versus n = 8/81 (RD: -1.5% (95% CI -10.4% to 7.1%)) were not significantly different between the flushing and the aspiration group. The median duration of the intervention was significantly longer with flushing (2.38 min; quartiles 2.0, 2.7) versus aspiration only (0.43 min; quartiles 0.3, 0.5) (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the mean (±SD) visual analogue scales pain score between the follicular flushing (3.4 ± 1.8) and the aspiration group (3.1 ± 1.89).
Limitations, reasons for caution: Blinding of the procedure was not possible.
Wider implications of the findings: Our study proved that flushing of single follicles in NC-IVF increases the oocyte yield. In contrast to polyfollicular IVF flushing seems to be beneficial in a monofollicular setting if the technique used in our study (single-lumen needle, 5 flushings with flushing volume adaptation) is applied.
Study funding/competing interest(s): The study was funded by the financial sources of the division and in part by a research grant provided by NMS Biomedical SA, Switzerland. The company did not have any roles in design or conduct of the study or in the preparation of the manuscript. The authors have no other conflicts of interest.
Trial registration number: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02641808.
Trial registration date: 29 December 2015.
Date of first patient’s enrolment: 22 August 2016.
Keywords: IVF; follicular flushing; live birth rate; monofollicular IVF; oocyte yield; single-lumen needle.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Follicular flushing increases the number of oocytes retrieved: a randomized controlled trial.Hum Reprod. 2023 Oct 3;38(10):1927-1937. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead169. Hum Reprod. 2023. PMID: 37632249 Clinical Trial.
-
Randomized, open trial comparing a modified double-lumen needle follicular flushing system with a single-lumen aspiration needle in IVF patients with poor ovarian response.Hum Reprod. 2017 Apr 1;32(4):832-835. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex019. Hum Reprod. 2017. PMID: 28333185 Clinical Trial.
-
Follicular flushing and in vitro fertilization outcomes in the poorest responders: a randomized controlled trial.Hum Reprod. 2013 Nov;28(11):2990-5. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det350. Epub 2013 Sep 5. Hum Reprod. 2013. PMID: 24014603 Clinical Trial.
-
Does follicular flushing increase oocyte number in poor responders? An update of a systematic review.Reprod Biomed Online. 2023 Feb;46(2):289-294. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2022.11.011. Epub 2022 Nov 22. Reprod Biomed Online. 2023. PMID: 36566145
-
The importance of follicular flushing in optimizing oocyte retrieval.Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Jun 1;35(3):238-245. doi: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000870. Epub 2023 Mar 17. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2023. PMID: 36943690 Review.
Cited by
-
Optimal Timing of Ovulation Triggering to Achieve Highest Success Rates in Natural Cycles-An Analysis Based on Follicle Size and Oestradiol Concentration in Natural Cycle IVF.Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022 May 26;13:855131. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2022.855131. eCollection 2022. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022. PMID: 35692395 Free PMC article.
-
Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Nov 21;11(11):CD004634. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004634.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36409927 Free PMC article.
-
Clomiphene citrate stimulated cycles - additional gonadotrophin stimulation increases endometrium thickness without increasing implantation rate.Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2022 Mar;14(1):77-81. doi: 10.52054/FVVO.14.1.013. Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2022. PMID: 35373551 Free PMC article.
-
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies comparing follicular flushing versus aspiration during oocyte retrieval in IVF cycles.Contracept Reprod Med. 2025 Mar 31;10(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s40834-025-00351-w. Contracept Reprod Med. 2025. PMID: 40165322 Free PMC article.
-
What is the optimum number of follicular flushes in mono-follicular in-vitro fertilization cycles in a poor responder population?J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2022 Mar 8;23(1):33-37. doi: 10.4274/jtgga.galenos.2021.2021-0016. Epub 2021 Jun 8. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2022. PMID: 34100576 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain: I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. pain1983;16:87–101. - PubMed
-
- Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L; ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1616–1624. - PubMed
-
- Haydardedeoglu B, Gjemalaj F, Aytac P, Kilicdag E.. Direct aspiration versus follicular flushing in poor responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2017;124:1190–1196. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous