Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

Acknowledgments: We thank all the women who participated in this trial; the participating general practitioners, gynecologists, and hospitals; the research nurses; and the staff of the Dutch Consortium for Studies in Women’s Health and Reproduction.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The ISTH-BAT score and outcomes after endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND: The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding assessment tool (ISTH-BAT), is used during the diagnostic workup of bleeding disorders. Data on ISTH-BAT scores in women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) undergoing endometrial ablation (EA) could be essential in optimizing HMB counselling. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the postsurgical incidence of amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, quality of life, re-intervention after EA, and ISTH-BAT score. METHODS: This study included women who have undergone EA because of HMB. During a follow-up of 2 to 5 years, ISTH-BAT, pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC), and Short Form-36 survey (SF-36) were administered. At 10 years of follow-up surgical re-interventions were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-one women were included of whom 77% (n = 55) had an ISTH-BAT score < 6, versus 23% (n = 16) ISTH-BAT score =6 (mean age 46.3 versus 42.3, p = 0.004). In the ISTH-BAT =6 group versus < 6 group, amenorrhea occurred in 63% (10/16) versus 82% (45/55) (p = 0.111), dysmenorrhea in 38% (6/16) versus 18% (10/55) (p = 0.111), and surgical re-intervention in 19% (3/16) versus 25% (14/55) (p = 0.582). SF-36 item (Bodily) pain was lower in the ISTH-BAT =6 group versus < 6 (median score 58.7 vs. 80.0, p = 0.104). CONCLUSIONS: An ISTH-BAT score =6 may be related to a lower amenorrhea incidence and higher dysmenorrhea rate after EA

Levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) versus endometrial ablation (Novasure) in women with heavy menstrual bleeding:a multicentre randomised controlled trial

<p>Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding is an important health problem. Two frequently used therapies are the levonorgestrel intra-uterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial ablation. The LNG-IUS can be applied easily by the general practitioner, which saves costs, but has considerable failure rates. As an alternative, endometrial ablation is also very effective, but this treatment has to be performed by a gynaecologist. Due to lack of direct comparison of LNG-IUS with endometrial ablation, there is no evidence based preferred advice for the use of one of these treatment possibilities.</p><p>Method/design: A multicenter randomised controlled trial, organised in a network infrastructure in the Netherlands in which general practitioners and gynaecologists collaborate.</p><p>Women >= 34 years with heavy menstrual bleeding, a Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC) score exceeding 150 points and no future child wish can participate in the trial. After informed consent, women will be randomised to a strategy starting with a levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system or a strategy starting with endometrial ablation.</p><p>The primary outcome is the PBAC score at 24 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes are patient satisfaction, complications, number of re-interventions, menstrual bleeding pattern, quality of life, sexual function, sick leave and costs. As predictors of effect of intervention we also meaure level of coagulation factors.</p><p>Discusson: This study, considering both effectiveness and cost effectiveness of LNG-IUS versus endometrial ablation may well improve care for women with heavy menstrual bleeding.</p>