A cost-utility analysis of microwave and thermal balloon endometrial ablation techniques for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding

The levonorgestrel intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Objective

To evaluate the costs and non‐inferiority of a strategy starting with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG‐IUS) compared with endometrial ablation (EA) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

Design

Cost‐effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective alongside a multicentre randomised non‐inferiority trial.

Setting

General practices and gynaecology departments in the Netherlands.

Population

In all, 270 women with HMB, aged ≥34 years old, without intracavitary pathology or wish for a future child.

Methods

Randomisation to a strategy starting with the LNG‐IUS (n = 132) or EA (n = 138). The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio was estimated.

Main outcome measures

Direct medical costs and (in)direct non‐medical costs were calculated. The primary outcome was menstrual blood loss after 24 months, measured with the mean Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (PBAC)‐score (non‐inferiority margin 25 points). A secondary outcome was successful blood loss reduction (PBAC‐score ≤75 points).

Results

Total costs per patient were €2,285 in the LNG‐IUS strategy and €3,465 in the EA strategy (difference: €1,180). At 24 months, mean PBAC‐scores were 64.8 in the LNG‐IUS group (n = 115) and 14.2 in the EA group (n = 132); difference 50.5 points (95% CI 4.3–96.7). In the LNG‐IUS group, 87% of women had a PBAC‐score ≤75 points versus 94% in the EA group (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.85–1.01). The ICER was €23 (95% CI €5–111) per PBAC‐point.

Conclusions

A strategy starting with the LNG‐IUS was cheaper than starting with EA, but non‐inferiority could not be demonstrated. The LNG‐IUS is reversible and less invasive and can be a cost‐effective treatment option, depending on the success rate women are willing to accept.

Tweetable abstract

Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding starting with LNG‐IUS is cheaper but slightly less effective than endometrial ablation.

Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding starting with LNG‐IUS is cheaper but slightly less effective than endometrial ablation.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is common in otherwise healthy women of reproductive age, and can affect physical health and quality of life. Surgery is usually a second-line treatment of HMB. Endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) to remove or ablate the endometrium is less invasive than hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is the definitive treatment and can be via open (laparotomy) approach, or via minimally invasive approaches (vaginally or laparoscopically). Each approach has its own advantages and risk profile.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of endometrial resection or ablation versus different routes of hysterectomy (open, minimally invasive hysterectomy, or unspecified route) for the treatment of HMB.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (July 2020), and reference lists, grey literature and trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared techniques of endometrial resection/ablation with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of HMB in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 RCTs (1966 participants) comparing EA/ER to hysterectomy (open (abdominal), minimally invasive (laparoscopic or vaginal), or unspecified (or at surgeon's discretion) route of hysterectomy). The results were rated as moderate-, low- and very low-certainty evidence. Endometrial resection/ablation versus open hysterectomy We found two trials. Women having EA/ER are probably less likely to perceive an improvement in HMB compared to women having open hysterectomy (risk ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 0.95; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably have a 13% risk of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 on the open hysterectomy group; 2 studies, 247 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to similar quality of life at two years (mean difference (MD) -5.30, 95% CI -11.90 to 1.30; 1 study, 155 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and satisfaction rate at one year (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00; 1 study, 194 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.32 to 5.20; 2 studies, 247 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably reduces time to return to normal activity compared to open hysterectomy (MD -21.00 days, 95% CI -24.78 to -17.22; 1 study, 197 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Endometrial resection/ablation versus minimally invasive hysterectomy We found five trials. The proportion of women with perception of improvement in HMB at two years may be similar between groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.04; 1 study, 79 women; low-certainty evidence). Blood loss may be higher in the EA/ER group when assessed using the Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life is probably lower in the EA/ER group compared to the minimally invasive hysterectomy group at two years according to the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) (MD -10.71, 95% CI -15.11 to -6.30; 2 studies, 145 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; 1 study, 616 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably increases the risk of further surgery for HMB compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy (RR 7.70, 95% CI 2.54 to 23.32; 4 studies, 922 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and treatments probably have similar rates of any serious adverse events (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.59; 4 studies, 809 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with EA/ER are probably less likely to be satisfied with treatment at one year (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94; 1 study, 558 women; moderate-certainty evidence). We were unable to pool data for time to return to work or normal life because of extreme heterogeneity (99%); however, the three studies reporting this all had the same direction of effect favouring EA/ER. Endometrial resection/ablation versus unspecified route of hysterectomy We found three trials. EA/ER may lead to a lower perception of improvement in HMB compared to unspecified route of hysterectomy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.95; 2 studies, 403 women; low-certainty evidence). Although EA/ER may lead to similar quality of life using the SF-36 General Health Perception at two years' follow-up (MD -1.90, 95% CI -8.67 to 4.87; 1 study, 209 women; low-certainty evidence), the proportion of women with improvement in general health at one year may be lower (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.95; 1 study, 185 women; low-certainty evidence). EA/ER probably has a risk of 5.4% of requiring further surgery for treatment failure (compared to 0 with total hysterectomy; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence) and reduces the proportion of women with any serious adverse event (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.80; 2 studies, 374 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Both treatments probably lead to a similar satisfaction rate at one year' follow-up (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.04; 3 studies, 545 women; moderate-certainty evidence). EA/ER may lead to shorter time to return to normal activity (MD -18.90 days, 95% CI -24.63 to -13.17; 1 study, 172 women; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial resection/ablation (EA/ER) offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for HMB. Effectiveness varies with EA/ER compared to different hysterectomy approaches. The perception of improvement in HMB with EA/ER is probably lower compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but may be similar compared to minimally invasive. Quality of life with EA/ER is probably similar to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but lower compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. Further surgery for treatment failure is probably more likely with EA/ER compared to all routes of hysterectomy. Satisfaction rates also vary. EA/ER probably has a similar rate of satisfaction compared to open and unspecified route of hysterectomy, but a lower rate of satisfaction compared to minimally invasive hysterectomy. The proportion having any serious adverse event appears similar in all groups, but specific adverse events did reported difference between EA/ER and different routes. We were unable to draw conclusions about the time to return to normal activity, but the direction of effect suggests it is likely to be shorter with EA/ER.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women of reproductive age, causing them physical problems, social disruption and reducing their quality of life. Medical therapy has traditionally been first-line therapy. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy. The definitive treatment is hysterectomy, but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications, as well as social and economic costs. Less invasive surgical techniques, such as endometrial resection and ablation, have been developed with the purpose of improving menstrual symptoms by removing or ablating the entire thickness of the endometrium.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of techniques of endometrial destruction by any means versus hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted-but were not limited to-the following: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the ongoing trial registries. We made attempts to identify trials by examining citation lists of review articles and guidelines and by performing handsearching. Searches were performed in 1999, 2007, 2008, 2013 and on 10 December 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any RCTs that compared techniques of endometrial resection or ablation (by any means) with hysterectomy (by any technique) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed trials for risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine RCTs that fulfilled our inclusion criteria for this review. For two trials, the review authors identified multiple publications that assessed different outcomes at different postoperative time points for the same women. No included trials used third generation techniques.Clinical measures of improved bleeding symptoms and satisfaction rates were observed in women who had undergone hysterectomy compared to endometrial ablation. A slightly lower proportion of women who underwent endometrial ablation perceived improvement in bleeding symptoms at one year (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.93; 4 studies, 650 women, I² = 31%; low-quality evidence), at two years (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 2 studies, 292 women, I² = 53%) and at four years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99; 2 studies, 237 women, I² = 79%). Women in the endometrial ablation group also showed improvement in pictorial blood loss assessment chart compared to their baseline (PBAC) score at one year (MD 24.40, 95% CI 16.01 to 32.79; 1 study, 68 women; moderate-quality evidence) and at two years (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91; 1 study, 68 women). Repeat surgery resulting from failure of the initial treatment was more likely to be needed after endometrial ablation than after hysterectomy at one year (RR 16.17, 95% CI 5.53 to 47.24; 927 women; 7 studies; I² = 0%), at two years (RR 34.06, 95% CI 9.86 to 117.65; 930 women; 6 studies; I² = 0%), at three years (RR 22.90, 95% CI 1.42 to 370.26; 172 women; 1 study) and at four years (RR 36.32, 95% CI 5.09 to 259.21;197 women; 1 study). The satisfaction rate was lower amongst those who had endometrial ablation at two years after surgery (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.95; 4 studies, 567 women, I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and no evidence of clear difference was reported between post-treatment satisfaction rates in groups at other follow-up times (1 and 4 years).Most adverse events, both major and minor, were more likely after hysterectomy during hospital stay. Women who had an endometrial ablation were less likely to experience sepsis (RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.31; participants = 621; studies = 4; I² = 62%), blood transfusion (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.59; 791 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%), pyrexia (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.35; 605 women; 3 studies; I² = 66%), vault haematoma (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; 858 women; 5 studies; I² = 0%) and wound haematoma (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.53; 202 women; 1 study) before hospital discharge. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.58; 172 women; 1 study).Recovery time was shorter in the endometrial ablation group, considering hospital stay, time to return to normal activities and time to return to work; we did not, however, pool these data owing to high heterogeneity. Some outcomes (such as a woman's perception of bleeding and proportion of women requiring further surgery for HMB), generated a low GRADE score, suggesting that further research in these areas is likely to change the estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial resection and ablation offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Both procedures are effective, and satisfaction rates are high. Although hysterectomy offers permanent and immediate relief from heavy menstrual bleeding, it is associated with a longer operating time and recovery period. Hysterectomy also has higher rates of postoperative complications such as sepsis, blood transfusion and haematoma (vault and wound). The initial cost of endometrial destruction is lower than that of hysterectomy but, because retreatment is often necessary, the cost difference narrows over time.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding affects up to one third of women in the United States, resulting in a reduced quality of life and significant cost to the health care system. Multiple treatment options exist, offering different potential for symptom control at highly variable initial costs, but the relative value of these treatment options is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of 4 treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding: hysterectomy, resectoscopic endometrial ablation, nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

STUDY DESIGN

We formulated a decision tree evaluating private payer costs and quality-adjusted life years over a 5 year time horizon for premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and no suspected malignancy. For each treatment option, we used probabilities derived from literature review to estimate frequencies of minor complications, major complications, and treatment failure resulting in the need for additional treatments. Treatments were compared in terms of total average costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand the range of possible outcomes if model inputs were varied.

RESULTS

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had superior quality-of-life outcomes to hysterectomy with lower costs. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was cost-effective compared with hysterectomy in the majority of scenarios (90%). Both resectoscopic and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation were associated with reduced costs compared with hysterectomy but resulted in a lower average quality of life. According to standard willingness-to-pay thresholds, resectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 44% of scenarios, and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 53% of scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Comparing all trade-offs associated with 4 possible treatments of heavy menstrual bleeding, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was superior to both hysterectomy and endometrial ablation in terms of cost and quality of life. Hysterectomy is associated with a superior quality of life and fewer complications than either type of ablation but at a higher cost. For women who are unwilling or unable to choose the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system as a first-course treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, consideration of cost, procedure-specific complications, and patient preferences can guide the decision between hysterectomy and ablation.

A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding

BACKGROUND

Uterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited.

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse, alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy was examined.

DESIGN

A multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study.

SETTING

Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Women with AUB - defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia) (HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding - and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine polyps.

INTERVENTIONS

We randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under general anaesthesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the woman's assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

RESULTS

At 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were £1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However, patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and procedure acceptability lower.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cost-Effectiveness of Global Endometrial Ablation vs. Hysterectomy for Treatment of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: US Commercial and Medicaid Payer Perspectives

Cost-effectiveness modeling studies of global endometrial ablation (GEA) for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) from a US perspective are lacking. The objective of this study was to model the cost-effectiveness of GEA vs. hysterectomy for treatment of AUB in the United States from both commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. The study team developed a 1-, 3-, and 5-year semi-Markov decision-analytic model to simulate 2 hypothetical patient cohorts of women with AUB-1 treated with GEA and the other with hysterectomy. Clinical and economic data (including treatment patterns, health care resource utilization, direct costs, and productivity costs) came from analyses of commercial and Medicaid claims databases. Analysis results show that cost savings with simultaneous reduction in treatment complications and fewer days lost from work are achieved with GEA versus hysterectomy over almost all time horizons and under both the commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. Cost-effectiveness metrics also favor GEA over hysterectomy from both the commercial payer and Medicaid payer perspectives-evidence strongly supporting the clinical-economic value about GEA versus hysterectomy. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

Cost effectiveness of endometrial ablation with the NovaSure(®) system versus other global ablation modalities and hysterectomy for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding: US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) interferes with physical, emotional, and social well-being, impacting the quality of life of more than 10 million women in the USA. Hysterectomy, the most common surgical treatment of AUB, has significant morbidity, low mortality, long recovery, and high associated health care costs. Global endometrial ablation (GEA) provides a surgical alternative with reduced morbidity, cost, and recovery time. The NovaSure(®) system utilizes unique radiofrequency impedance-based GEA technology. This study evaluated cost effectiveness of AUB treatment with NovaSure ablation versus other GEA modalities and versus hysterectomy from the US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives.

METHODS

A health state transition (semi-Markov) model was developed using epidemiologic, clinical, and economic data from commercial and Medicaid claims database analyses, supplemented by published literature. Three hypothetical cohorts of women receiving AUB interventions were simulated over 1-, 3-, and 5-year horizons to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes for NovaSure, other GEA modalities, and hysterectomy.

RESULTS

Model analyses show lower costs for NovaSure-treated patients than for those treated with other GEA modalities or hysterectomy over all time frames under commercial payer and Medicaid perspectives. By Year 3, cost savings versus other GEA were $930 (commercial) and $3,000 (Medicaid); cost savings versus hysterectomy were $6,500 (commercial) and $8,900 (Medicaid). Coinciding with a 43%-71% reduction in need for re-ablation, there were 69%-88% fewer intervention/reintervention complications for NovaSure-treated patients versus other GEA modalities, and 82%-91% fewer versus hysterectomy. Furthermore, NovaSure-treated patients had fewer days of work absence and short-term disability. Cost-effectiveness metrics showed NovaSure treatment as economically dominant over other GEA modalities in all circumstances. With few exceptions, similar results were shown for NovaSure treatment versus hysterectomy.

CONCLUSION

Model results demonstrate strong financial favorability for NovaSure ablation versus other GEA modalities and hysterectomy from commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives. Results will interest clinicians, health care payers, and self-insured employers striving for cost-effective AUB treatments.

Thermal balloon endometrial ablation in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding

Aim:

Heavy menstrual bleeding is one of the common health problems in women. The first-line therapy of heavy menstrual bleeding is the medical therapy, but this is not successful. Currently, global ablation procedures were introduced for treating of heavy menstrual bleeding. The aim of this study was to the analysis of the patient with menorrhagia performed operations of Cavaterm in our university affiliated hospital, and explores its effectiveness and acceptability.

Methods:

A retrospective study was conducted on 30 patients with menorrhagia who were unresponsive to hormone therapy or not candidates for hysterectomy underwent endometrial ablation using Cavaterm. Preoperative and postoperative PBAC Scoring System was used to assess menorrhagia. Outcome measures were amenorrhea rates, reduction of menstrual flow rates, heavy bleeding, menstrual and patients’ satisfaction rates at 3, 6 and 12 months postoperative.

Results:

After a follow-up at 3, 6, and 12 months postoperative, 36.7%, 43.3%, and 36.7% of women had a reduction in vaginal bleeding, respectively. Amenorrhea rates were 56.7%, 50.0%, and 56.7% in the Cavaterm at 3, 6, and 12 months. The rate of women’s reported good or excellent satisfaction was 93.3% in 12 months. During the follow-up period, no woman received a subsequent hysterectomy.

Conclusion:

The findings of this research indicated that outcome with the Cavaterm was as good for women with menorrhagia. Therefore, it is necessary to emphasize on lower operative and post-operative procedural risk and a deleterious effect on patients who were unresponsive to hormone therapy.

The long-term outcomes of endometrial ablation in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Long-term data from the studies of various endometrial ablation techniques are beginning to emerge. This review appraises the current literature on endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding, with particular emphasis on second-generation techniques, and their effectiveness, rates of repeat and further interventions and adverse events occurring 1 year or more after the procedure.

RECENT FINDINGS

Second-generation, nonhysteroscopic techniques are marginally superior to hysteroscopic approaches, in terms of amenorrhoea, refractory menorrhagia and satisfaction rates. Hysterectomy rates are around 20% at 2 years, with a further 3-5% having repeat ablations. Bipolar radiofrequency and microwave ablation give rise to higher amenorrhoea rates than thermal balloon ablation, and are less likely to require repeat or further intervention.

SUMMARY

Endometrial ablation is a well tolerated and effective procedure for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. Second-generation techniques provide greater benefit than hysteroscopic techniques, with shorter procedural times and the possibility of outpatient treatment. Chronic pelvic pain frequently resolves after ablation, but can also develop de novo. Pregnancy outcomes are poor and continuing contraception is recommended.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), which includes both menorrhagia and metrorrhagia, is an important cause of ill health in women. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy. The definitive treatment is hysterectomy, but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications, as well as social and economic costs. Several less invasive surgical techniques (e.g. transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE), laser approaches) and various methods of endometrial ablation have been developed with the purpose of improving menstrual symptoms by removing or ablating the entire thickness of the endometrium.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of techniques of endometrial destruction by any means versus hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeted but were not limited to the following: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Register of Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials. Attempts were made to identify trials by examining citation lists of review articles and guidelines and by performing handsearching. Searches were performed in 2007, 2008 and 2013.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included in the review were any RCTs that compared techniques of endometrial destruction by any means with hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data. Outcomes analysed included improvement in menstrual blood loss, satisfaction, change in quality of life, duration of surgery and hospital stay, time to return to work, adverse events and requirements for repeat surgery due to failure of the initial surgical treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review were identified. For two trials, the review authors identified multiple publications that assessed different outcomes at different postoperative time points for the same women.An advantage in favour of hysterectomy compared with endometrial ablation was observed in various measures of improvement in bleeding symptoms and satisfaction rates. A slightly lower proportion of women who underwent endometrial ablation perceived improvement in bleeding symptoms at one year (RR 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.93, four studies, 650 women, I(2) = 31%), at two years (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99, two studies, 292 women, I(2) = 53%) and at four years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99, two studies, 237 women, I(2) = 79%). The same group of women also showed improvement in pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) score at one year (MD 24.40, 95% CI 16.01 to 32.79, one study, 68 women) and at two years (MD 44.00, 95% CI 36.09 to 51.91, one study, 68 women). Repeat surgery resulting from failure of the initial treatment was more likely to be needed after endometrial ablation than after hysterectomy at one year (RR 14.9, 95% CI 5.2 to 42.6, six studies, 887 women, I(2) = 0%), at two years (RR 23.4, 95% CI 8.3 to 65.8, six studies, 930 women, I(2) = 0%), at three years (RR 11.1, 95% CI 1.5 to 80.1, one study, 172 women) and at four years (RR 36.4, 95% CI 5.1 to 259.2, one study, 197 women). Most adverse events, both major and minor, were significantly more likely after hysterectomy during hospital stay. Women who had a hysterectomy were more likely to experience sepsis (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3, four studies, 621 women, I(2) = 62%), blood transfusion (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6, four studies, 751 women, I(2) = 0%), pyrexia (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4, three studies, 605 women, I(2) = 66%), vault haematoma (RR 0.1, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.3, five studies, 858 women, I(2) = 0%) and wound haematoma (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.5, one study, 202 women) before hospital discharge. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5, one study, 172 women).For some outcomes (such as a woman's perception of bleeding and proportion of women requiring further surgery for HMB), a low GRADE score was generated, suggesting that further research in these areas is likely to change the estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Endometrial resection and ablation offers an alternative to hysterectomy as a surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Both procedures are effective, and satisfaction rates are high. Although hysterectomy is associated with longer operating time (particularly for the laparoscopic route), a longer recovery period and higher rates of postoperative complications, it offers permanent relief from heavy menstrual bleeding. The initial cost of endometrial destruction is significantly lower than that of hysterectomy, but, because retreatment is often necessary, the cost difference narrows over time.

Rates of subsequent surgery following endometrial ablation among English women with menorrhagia: population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of further surgery amongst women who had an initial endometrial ablation (EA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study using a national administrative database.

SETTING

Population-based study of hospital care in the English National Health Service.

POPULATION

A cohort of 114,910 women who had EA for HMB between January 2000 and December 2011.

METHODS

Multiple Cox regressions were performed to identify the risks of a further procedure, adjusted for age, social deprivation, year and type of initial EA, and presence of fibroids/polyps.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Time to repeat EA or hysterectomy after initial surgery.

RESULTS

Of 114,910 women undergoing EA, 16.7% had at least one subsequent procedure within 5 years. Higher rates of subsequent surgery were associated with younger age at initial EA, with women aged under 35 years having an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.83 (95% CI 2.67-2.99), compared with women aged over 45 years. Women who had radiofrequency ablation were less likely to have subsequent surgery as compared with first-generation techniques (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63-0.76). The rate of a subsequent hysterectomy within 5 years was 13.5%. Younger women (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.51-0.69) and those who had balloon, microwave, or radiofrequency ablation were less likely to have a second EA procedure, rather than a hysterectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

One in six women have further surgery after EA for HMB, which is a higher rate than reported in clinical trials. This risk of further surgery decreases with age.

Endometrial ablation with the NovaSure system in Iran

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the rate of response to treatment with the NovaSure endometrial ablation device among Iranian women with menorrhagia.

METHODS

Twenty 35-50-year-old women with menorrhagia who were referred to Arash Hospital, Tehran, Iran, in 2008 were enrolled. They underwent endometrial ablation via the NovaSure system and were followed-up for 2 years.

RESULTS

The incidence of amenorrhea was 30.0% at the end of the 2-year follow-up period. Hypomenorrhea was reported by 40.0% of women. The mean number of days of bleeding per month decreased significantly, from 30.0 ± 6.4 days before treatment to 3.1 ± 2.6 days after 2 years (P < 0.001). The severity of bleeding decreased significantly within 2 years after treatment (P < 0.001). In total, 85.0% of women were satisfied and 90.0% had responded to treatment-as defined by amenorrhea, hypomenorrhea, or return to normal menstruation.

CONCLUSION

The NovaSure system is effective and should be considered by gynecologists for the treatment of menorrhagia.

Does hydrothermal ablation avoid hysterectomy? Long-term follow-up

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the long-term success rate of the HydroThermAblator system (HTA).

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 376 patients who underwent HTA at our hospital during an 8-year period, following case note review and distribution of a validated menorrhagia questionnaire.

RESULTS

The mean age of patients was 43 years. Operative complications included 3 women (0.8%) who experienced intraoperative burns. Of the 248 (66%) returned questionnaires, satisfaction rates were high at 77%. The amenorrhea rate was 38%, with a further 37% of women reporting a substantial decrease in their blood loss. In all, 29 (11%) women underwent subsequent hysterectomy for persistent menorrhagia or dysmenorrhea. Younger women had a significantly higher chance of proceeding to subsequent (P < .05) hysterectomy.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the long-term patient satisfaction with HTA and that the overall probability of proceeding to subsequent hysterectomy over 8 years was only 11%.

Modified thermal balloon endometrial ablation in low resource settings: a cost-effective method using Foley's catheter

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of a modified Foley's catheter endometrial ablation in the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding in low resource settings.

METHODS

Four hundred and thirty premenopausal women with abnormal uterine bleeding were subjected to thermal balloon endometrial ablation using modified Foley's catheter. The primary outcome measure was patient satisfaction regarding menstrual blood loss. Secondary measures included improvement in quality of life scores and failure rates.

RESULTS

Three hundred and three patients were available for evaluation at 3-year follow up. 270/303 (89.1%) reported their satisfaction as indicated by reduction in days of menstrual flow per cycle (4.2 vs. 8.8 days, p < 0.0001). There was a significant improvement in quality of life scores (p < 0.0001). The rate of failure varies according to the interval of follow up from 15.6% at 6 months to 10.9% at 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Modified Foley's catheter endometrial ablation is a cost effective alternative to other thermal endometrial ablation techniques in the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding in low resource settings.

Economic evaluation of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system for the treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding in Spain

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost and effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) versus combined oral contraception (COC) and progestogens (PROG) in first-line treatment of dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) in Spain.

STUDY DESIGN

A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of LNG-IUS, COC and PROG was carried out using a Markov model based on clinical data from the literature and expert opinion. The population studied were women with a previous diagnosis of idiopathic heavy menstrual bleeding. The analysis was performed from the National Health System perspective, discounting both costs and future effects at 3%. In addition, a sensitivity analysis (univariate and probabilistic) was conducted.

RESULTS

The results show that the greater efficacy of LNG-IUS translates into a gain of 1.92 and 3.89 symptom-free months (SFM) after six months of treatment versus COC and PROG, respectively (which represents an increase of 33% and 60% of symptom-free time). Regarding costs, LNG-IUS produces savings of € 174.2-309.95 and € 230.54-577.61 versus COC and PROG, respectively, after 6 months-5 years. Apart from cost savings and gains in SFM, quality-adjusted life months (QALM) are also favourable to LNG-IUS in all scenarios, with a range of gains between 1 and 2 QALM compared to COC and PROG.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that first-line use of the LNG-IUS is the dominant therapeutic option (less costly and more effective) in comparison with first-line use of COC or PROG for the treatment of DUB in Spain. LNG-IUS as first line is also the option that provides greatest health-related quality of life to patients.

A cost-utility analysis of microwave endometrial ablation versus thermal balloon endometrial ablation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBALL) for heavy menstrual bleeding.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis performed alongside a pragmatic RCT in a single hospital within Scotland on women undergoing MEA and TBALL. Resource use data collected from all 314 trial participants were combined with study specific and published unit cost data to estimate a cost per patient. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were based on EQ-5D responses at baseline, 2 weeks, 6 and 12 months. The incremental cost per QALY of TBALL versus MEA was calculated and bootstrapping was performed to determine the likelihood that a treatment would be cost-effective at different threshold values for society's willingness to pay for a QALY.

RESULTS

The mean cost of TBALL (10 years equipment life, 100 uses annually) of reusable equipment was pound181 (95% confidence interval [CI] pound70-434) greater than MEA. There were no statistically significant differences between the total nonhealth costs and health benefits of the two arms. On average, MEA provided more QALYs after adjusting for baseline EQ-5D score (0.017; 95% CI 0.017-0.051). In terms of mean incremental cost per QALY, MEA was, on average, dominant (less costly and at least as effective) and there was over a 90% chance that MEA would be considered cost-effective at a pound20,000 threshold of a cost per QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

MEA is likely to be more cost-effective than TBALL at 1 year. Further longer-term follow-up is, however, needed.

Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for treatment of uterine fibroids

Objective

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a treatment strategy for symptomatic uterine fibroids, which starts with Magnetic Resonance-guided Focused Ultrasound Surgery (MRgFUS) as compared with current practice comprising uterine artery embolisation, myomectomy and hysterectomy.

Design

Cost-utility analysis based on a Markov model.

Setting

National Health Service (NHS) Trusts in England and Wales.

Population

Women for whom surgical treatment for uterine fibroids is being considered.

Methods

The parameters of the Markov model of the treatment of uterine fibroids are drawn from a series of clinical studies of MRgFUS, and from the clinical effectiveness literature. Health-related quality of life is measured using the 6D. Costs are estimated from the perspective of the NHS. The impact of uncertainty is examined using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Main outcome measures

Incremental cost-effectiveness measured by cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

Results

The base-case results imply a cost saving and a small QALY gain per woman as a result of an MRgFUS treatment strategy. The cost per QALY gained is sensitive to cost of MRgFUS relative to other treatments, the age of the woman and the nonperfused volume relative to the total fibroids volume.

Conclusions

A treatment strategy for symptomatic uterine fibroids starting with MRgFUS is likely to be cost-effective.

Please cite this paper as: Zowall H, Cairns J, Brewer C, Lamping D, Gedroyc W, Regan L. Cost-effectiveness of magnetic resonance-guided focused ultrasound surgery for treatment of uterine fibroids. BJOG 2008;115:653–662.

Second-generation endometrial ablation – an overview

Various methods exist to destroy the endometrium as a treatment for menorrhagia. This chapter discusses the rationale, evidence, indications, and long-term safety and efficacy of the current techniques. It also discusses endometrial ablation in the context of its clinical utility in comparison with the existing alternative treatments.

Thermal balloon endometrial ablation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study is to review the role of thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA) as an alternative in treating abnormal uterine bleeding.

METHODS

Articles relevant to our review and relevant references from the initially identified articles on the field that were archived by May 2007, were retrieved from Pubmed.

RESULTS

Success rates ranged from 83 up to 94%, with patient's satisfaction ranging from 57 up to 94%. Persisted menorrhagia could reach 17% in some studies.

CONCLUSION

TBEA is an effective alternative method used in the treatment of menorrhagea which results in a significant reduction in menstrual bleeding and high satisfaction rates. However, a longer follow-up is required to determine the role of such a treatment.

Cost-utility of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared with hysterectomy and second generation endometrial ablative techniques in managing patients with menorrhagia in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the cost-utility of levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS; Mirena) compared to second generation endometrial ablative techniques [i.e. microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) and thermal balloon endometrial ablation (TBEA)) and hysterectomy in the UK.

METHODS

Clinical and utility data from a 5-year randomised controlled trial comparing LNG-IUS with hysterectomy were combined with further data from published studies to construct a state-transition (Markov) model. The model depicted the movement of patients between health states over 5 years following treatment for menorrhagia. The model was used to estimate the cost-utility of LNG-IUS followed by ablation (L-A); LNG-IUS followed by hysterectomy (L-H); immediate ablation (MEA or TBEA) and immediate hysterectomy in the UK at 2004/2005 prices, from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service (NHS).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

The expected 5-yearly cost of treating menorrhagia with L-A, L-H, TBEA, MEA and hysterectomy was estimated to be 828 pounds sterling, 1355 pounds sterling, 1679 pounds sterling, 1812 pounds sterling and 2983 pounds sterling per patient respectively and the expected level of health gain to be 4.14, 4.12, 4.13, 4.13 and 4.01 QALYs per patient respectively. LNG-IUS followed by ablation dominated all the alternative treatments. Hysterectomy was dominated by the alternative treatments. Sensitivity analysis found the model to be sensitive to the quality of life data used.

CONCLUSION

Within the model's limitations, LNGIUS followed by ablation appears to offer the NHS a cost-effective treatment for menorrhagia, when compared to immediate surgery, affording the NHS a less expensive treatment modality without detrimental effects on resulting health gain.

Management of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: Is Hysterectomy the Radical Mastectomy of Gynecology?

Both hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding and radical mastectomy for breast cancer are steeped in the history of surgery and have recently been challenged as being too radical for the disorder at hand. Radical mastectomy has largely been replaced with local removal of the tumor with subsequent radiation and/or chemotherapy. Alternatives to hysterectomy include a number of medical interventions, most notably intrauterine progestin-releasing systems, and endometrial ablation, a procedure that has a relatively high success rate and one that is now feasible for many women in an office or procedure room setting. However, although radical mastectomy rates have dropped precipitously, hysterectomy rates, at least in the United States remain relatively stable. Determining the proportion of hysterectomies that are done for heavy menstrual bleeding is difficult, largely because of coding issues, so it is difficult to measure the impact of new medical and minimally invasive surgical procedures. Nevertheless, it seems clear that many women are not exposed to the plethora of options to hysterectomy, a fact that may reflect a number of issues that may include training, skill, and financial incentives or disincentives. Clearly, options to hysterectomy are not a panacea, but if women are empowered to select from all of the options available, the rate of hysterectomy for bleeding should decrease while maintaining, or even enhancing the patient's satisfaction with care.

Two cases of leiomyoma necrosis after thermal balloon endometrial ablation

The presence of intramural leiomyomas is not necessarily a contraindication to thermal balloon endometrial ablation, provided there is minimal distortion of the endometrial cavity. We report 2 cases of necrosis of intramural leiomyomas after the procedure. These cases illustrate a potential complication of thermal balloon endometrial ablation that has been reported only once previously in the medical literature.

Endometrial Ablation: Where Have We Been? Where Are We Going?

Endometrial ablation (EA) is targeted destruction of the endothelial surface of the uterine cavity. The procedure was originally designed as a less invasive alternative to hysterectomy for the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding unrelated to structural pathology of the uterus, that was not responsive to medical therapy. More recently it has become apparent that the procedure can be performed in the presence of submucous leiomyomas, providing they meet a number of size and location criteria. The first EA serie as published in Germany in the 1930s, but the procedure did not attract much attention until the latter part of the 20th century. Currently, EA can be performed under endoscopic direction with the neodymium:yttrium alumnum garnet laser, with a radiofrequency resectoscope, or with an expanding array of nonresectoscopic EA systems. It is apparent that most but not all of the complications associated with resectoscopic endometrial ablation are eliminated with nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, but serious morbidity has been reported with all of the newer systems to date. Success and patient satisfaction seem to be enduring in the majority of well-selected patients treated in clinical trials, but repeat surgery, usually hysterectomy, is performed in 25% to 40% by 5 years after surgery. Increased efficiencies should be realized if the procedure could be moved to an office setting.

Managing drug-resistant essential menorrhagia without hysterectomy

Menorrhagia is a common disorder that requires plenty of resources. Rapid developments in medical technology have resulted in new management strategies, which are true alternatives to hysterectomy. In many countries the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and endometrial destruction techniques are available for menorrhagia. Clinicians must answer questions about cost, effectiveness and quality of medical care when choosing the treatment option. This review integrates the results from the latest studies and review articles about LNG-IUS and endometrial destruction techniques by addressing the key clinical issues in menorrhagia. Both LNG-IUS and endometrial ablation seem to be good and effective alternative options to hysterectomy. Although these treatments have relatively high failure rates, the majority of women are satisfied and the cost-effectiveness of these treatments are better than that of hysterectomy. Both treatments have their advantages and disadvantages. Thus far LNG-IUS seems to be more cost-effective than endometrial resection or hysterectomy at 5 years follow-up. However, second generation ablation techniques may offer better cost-effectiveness than the first generation techniques, but the evidence is insufficient.

Cost-effectiveness of treatments for dysfunctional uterine bleeding in women who need contraception

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to compare the cost-effectiveness of oral contraceptives (OCs), the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical management in treating dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) in women not desiring additional children.

METHOD

A Markov model was constructed from the perspective of the health services payers for a 5-year period. Treatment costs, DUB treatment success rates and contraception success rates were obtained through a literature review.

RESULTS

In women not responding to an initial trial of OCs, surgical management was more effective than the LNG-IUS (95.5% vs. 92%) but at higher cost (US$4853 vs. US$2796 per woman). Among responders to OCs, continuing treatment with the LNG-IUS instead of OCs was more effective (92% vs. 90.4%) and less expensive (US$2796 vs. US$4711). For women naïve to medical therapy, the LNG-IUS and OCs had similar effectiveness, but cost for the LNG-IUS was lower (US$2796 vs. US$4895). In all scenarios, surgery followed if medical therapy failed; rates of primary method failure were 62.5% with OCs and 34% with the LNG-IUS at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment strategies employing the LNG-IUS are the most cost-effective in managing DUB, regardless of whether a woman has previously tried OC therapy.

Clinical and health service implications of second generation endometrial ablation devices

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review evaluates the current evidence on the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of the ever-increasing number of second-generation endometrial ablation devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

The literature covered by this review includes (1) evidence on long-term benefit, avoidance of hysterectomy and improvement in quality of life, (2) applicability of these techniques in the outpatient environment under local or no anaesthesia, (3) frequency and nature of early and delayed complications associated with these devices, (4) impact on clinical practice and the health service, and (5) implications for research.

SUMMARY

Where appropriate, second-generation devices are rapidly becoming the first-line surgical choice for the management of heavy menstrual bleeding. This has both cost-savings and negative implications for the health service. There is also emerging evidence that improvement in quality of life is more relevant to women than amenorrhoea rates. What has come to light from this review is the lack of accurate data on adverse events rate, and the urgent need for a better appreciation of the frequency and nature of complications.

A cost-utility analysis of hysterectomy, endometrial resection and ablation and medical therapy for menorrhagia

BACKGROUND

Four types of treatment [hysterectomy, endometrial resection/ablation, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and oral medical therapy] are available for management of menorrhagia. The objective of this study was to compare the cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained by these four treatment alternatives.

METHODS

A Markov model was designed to simulate the healthcare resource utilization and QALYs of the four treatment alternatives for patients presenting with menorrhagia over 5 years. Clinical inputs were estimated from literature, and the cost analysis was conducted from the perspective of healthcare provider in Hong Kong.

RESULTS

The base-case analysis showed that the hysterectomy group was the most effective (4.725 QALYs) alternative with the highest cost (USD6878, 1USD=7.8HKD). The incremental cost per additional QALY (ICER) gained by hysterectomy was USD23 500. The probability of extra surgery in the endometrial resection/ablation was an influential factor. Probabalistic sensitivity analysis of 10,000 simulations of the Monte Carlo model showed that the hysterectomy group gained higher number of QALYs than the LNG-IUS, oral medical treatment and endometrial resection/ablation groups, 99, 99 and 98% of the time, and it was more costly than the other three groups over 85% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Hysterectomy appears to be cost effective, with ICER less than USD50,000, for management of menorrhagia.

Endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review evaluates the currently available evidence regarding resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA) and the various nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA) techniques used for heavy menstrual bleeding.

RECENT FINDINGS

Laser endometrial ablation is now used infrequently, largely because of procedure time, but also because of the cost and training associated with the technique. REA can be performed in a wider spectrum of endometrial cavity configurations than NREA and, at least in expert hands, remains the gold standard. Each of the five available types of NREA device possesses advantages and disadvantages over the others with respect to variables such as treatment time, required cervical dilation, and size and configuration of the endometrial cavity. All provide acceptable results that are comparable to that of REA in expert hands. Serious complications seem to be less common with NREA, but uterine perforation and bowel or other visceral injury can still occur. When endometrial-ablation patients were followed for up to 5 years, repeat surgery rates ranged from 20 to 40%, thereby eroding both the direct and indirect treatment-related resource utilization. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices demonstrate similar clinical and patient-satisfaction outcomes to endometrial ablation but can be inserted in the office and allow maintenance of fertility.

SUMMARY

Both REA and NREA provide at least short- to intermediate-term options to hysterectomy for patients with heavy menstrual bleeding and normal or near-normal endometrial cavities. Consequently, the ideal candidates are likely those who are within 5 years of menopause.

Endometrial resection and ablation versus hysterectomy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or menorrhagia is an important cause of ill health in women. Surgical treatment of HMB often follows failed or ineffective medical therapy and the definitive treatment is hysterectomy but this is a major surgical procedure with significant physical and emotional complications and social and economic costs. A number of less invasive surgical techniques (e.g. endometrial resection and laser ablation) have been developed with the purpose of removing the entire thickness of the endometrium. The benefits claimed for these therapies are reduced trauma and post-operative complications to the woman, reduced need for a general anaesthetic, direct cost savings to the health service due largely to a shift from inpatient to day case treatment and indirect cost savings to society as women return more quickly to their usual activities. However, endometrial hysteroscopic techniques are not always completely successful and additional surgical treatment is required in a proportion of cases. Although initially the resource and patient costs of these techniques are much cheaper than the cost of hysterectomy, the need for re treatment at a later stage may reduce the cost differential. Thus, the effectiveness of these techniques to improve a woman's perception of her own wellbeing long term has yet to be confirmed.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to compare endometrial destruction techniques with hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB).

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches for relevant randomised controlled trials of the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Sub fertility Group Register of Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychLIT, Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, Social Sciences Index and CINAHL were performed. Attempts were also made to identify trials from citation lists of review articles and hand searching. In most cases, the first or corresponding author of each included trial was contacted for additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

The inclusion criteria were randomised comparisons of endometrial destruction techniques with hysterectomy by any means for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding in premenopausal women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Five RCTs were identified that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review. For two trials, a number of publications were identified which assessed different outcomes and different follow up time points for the same patients. The reviewers extracted the data independently and odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes were estimated from the data. Outcomes analysed included improvement in menstrual blood loss, satisfaction, change in quality of life, duration of surgery and hospital stay, time to return to work, adverse events and requirement for repeat surgery because of failure of the initial surgical treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

There was a significant advantage in favour of hysterectomy in the improvement in HMB and satisfaction rates (up to 4 years post surgery) compared with endometrial destruction techniques. Although many quality of life scales reported no differences between surgery groups, there was some evidence of a greater improvement in general health for hysterectomy patients. Duration of surgery, hospital stay and recovery time were all shorter following endometrial destruction. Most adverse events, both major and minor, were significantly more likely after hysterectomy and before discharge from hospital. After discharge from hospital, the only difference that was reported for this group was a higher rate of infection. Repeat surgery because of failure of the initial treatment, either endometrial ablation or hysterectomy, was more likely after endometrial destruction than hysterectomy. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)