Endometrial ablation plus levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system versus endometrial ablation alone in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial; MIRA2 trial

Which variables are associated with recruitment failure? A nationwide review on obstetrical and gynaecological multicentre RCTs (2003-2023)

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess which variables are associated with recruitment failure of obstetrical and gynaecological randomised controlled trials (RCTs), leading to an extension of the study period.

DESIGN

Nationwide study.

SETTING

A cohort of RCTs supported by the trial centre of the Dutch Consortium of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

POPULATION

We included 83 RCTs that recruited patients between 1 March 2003 and 1 December 2023.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcome was recruitment target not achieved within 6 months after the preplanned recruitment period. Secondary outcomes were recruitment target not achieved within an extension period of at least 12 months and premature termination of the trial. In all RCTs, we collected information on variables with a potential effect on recruitment failure, recorded at five levels; patient, doctor, participating centre, study organisation and study design.

RESULTS

In total, 46 of 83 RCTs (55%) did not achieve their targeted recruitment within the preplanned study period with a maximal extension period of 6 months. The most relevant variables for recruitment failure in multivariable risk prediction modelling were presence of a no-treatment arm (where treatment is standard clinical practice), a compensation fee of less than €200 per included patient, funding of less than €350 000, while a preceding pilot study lowered this risk.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified that the presence of a no-treatment arm, low funding and a low compensation fee per included patient were the most relevant risk factors for recruitment failure within the preplanned period, while a preceding pilot study lowered this risk. Awareness of these variables is important when designing future studies.

Guideline No. 453: Endometrial Ablation in the Management of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update of the current evidence-based guideline on the techniques and technologies used in endometrial ablation, a minimally invasive technique for the management of abnormal uterine bleeding of benign origin.

TARGET POPULATION

Women of reproductive age with abnormal uterine bleeding and benign pathology with or without structural abnormalities.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Implementation of the guideline recommendations will improve the provision of endometrial ablation as an effective treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding. Following these recommendations would allow the surgical procedure to be performed safely and maximize success for patients.

EVIDENCE

The guideline was updated with published literature retrieved through searches of Medline and the Cochrane Library from January 2014 to April 2023, using appropriate controlled vocabulary and keywords (endometrial ablation, hysteroscopy, menorrhagia, heavy menstrual bleeding, abnormal uterine bleeding, hysterectomy). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies written in English. Grey (unpublished) literature was retrieved from the Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Quebec (AOGQ) in 2023.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

Obstetricians, gynaecologists, and primary care providers.

SOCIAL MEDIA ABSTRACT

This is an updated version of the 2015 SOGC Endometrial Ablation guideline. The authors discuss special considerations, update evidence, and make new fluid deficit recommendations.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

RECOMMENDATIONS.

A 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs bipolar radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding: long-term follow-up of a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding has a substantial impact on professional, physical, and social functioning. In 2021, results from a randomized controlled trial comparing a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation as treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding were published. Both treatment strategies were equally effective in treating heavy menstrual bleeding during 2-year follow-up. However, long-term results are also relevant for both patients and healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess long-term differences in reintervention risk and menstrual blood loss in women with the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding treated according to a strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation.

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a long-term follow-up study of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (MIRA trial), in which women were allocated to either a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (n=132) or radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation (n=138). Women from the original trial were contacted to fill out 6 questionnaires. The primary outcome was the reintervention rate after allocated treatment. Secondary outcomes included surgical reintervention rate, menstrual bleeding measured by the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, (disease-specific) quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

From the 270 women who were randomized in the original trial, 196 (52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group: n=94; radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation group: n=102) participated in this long-term follow-up study. Mean follow-up duration was 7.4 years (range, 6-9 years). The cumulative reintervention rate (including both medical and surgical reinterventions) was 40.0% (34/85) in the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 28.7% (27/94) in the radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation group (relative risk, 1.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-2.10). The cumulative rate of surgical reinterventions only was significantly higher among patients with a treatment strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system compared with radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation (35.3% [30/85] vs 19.1% [18/94]; relative risk, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.10). However, the hysterectomy rate was similar (11.8% [10/94] in the 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 18.1% [17/102] in the radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation group; relative risk, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.34). Most reinterventions occurred during the first 24 months of follow-up. A total of 171 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart scores showed a median bleeding score of 0.0. No clinically relevant differences were found regarding quality of life, sexual function, and patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The overall risk of reintervention after long-term follow-up was not different between women treated according to a treatment strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and those treated using a strategy starting with radiofrequency nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation. However, women allocated to a treatment strategy starting with a 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had a higher risk of surgical reintervention, which was driven by an increase in subsequent endometrial ablation. Both treatment strategies were effective in lowering menstrual blood loss over the long term. The results of this long-term follow-up study can support physicians in optimizing the counseling of women with heavy menstrual bleeding, thus promoting informed decision-making regarding choice of treatment.

Risk of Hysterectomy After Endometrial Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the risk of hysterectomy after nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA SOURCES

The EMBASE, MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and Cochrane databases were searched for eligible articles from inception until June 13, 2022. We used combinations of search terms for endometrial ablation and hysterectomy.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Articles included in the review described the incidence of hysterectomy at a specific point in time after ablation with a minimum follow-up duration of 12 months.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

The literature search yielded a total of 3,022 hits. A total of 53 studies met our inclusion and exclusion criteria, including six retrospective studies, 24 randomized controlled trials, and 23 prospective studies. A total of 48,071 patients underwent endometrial ablation between 1992 and 2017. Follow-up duration varied between 12 and 120 months. Analyses per follow-up moment showed 4.3% hysterectomy rate at 12 months of follow-up (n=29 studies), 11.1% at 18 months (n=1 study), 8.0% at 24 months (n=11 studies), 10.2% at 36 months (n=12 studies), 7.6% at 48 months (n=2 studies), and 12.4% at 60 months (n=6 studies). Two studies reported a mean hysterectomy rate at 10 years after ablation of 21.3%. Minimal clinically relevant differences in hysterectomy rates were observed among the different study designs. Furthermore, we found no significant differences in hysterectomy rate among the different nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation devices.

CONCLUSION

The risk of hysterectomy after endometrial ablation seems to increase from 4.3% after 1 year to 12.4% after 5 years. Clinicians can use the results of this review to counsel patients about the 12% risk of hysterectomy 5 years after endometrial ablation.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020156281.