Pre-operative endometrial thinning agents before endometrial destruction for heavy menstrual bleeding

Endometrial ablation techniques in treating menorrhagia

Menorrhagia is a frequent gynecological problem that is clinically described as excessive blood loss of 80 mL per menstrual cycle. It has the potential to lower their quality of life and to induce anemia. Medical therapy has typically been the first line of treatment; however, it is frequently ineffectual. Hysterectomy, on the other hand, is clearly 100 percent effective in stopping bleeding, but it is more expensive and can cause serious problems. So, the endometrial ablation is preferred when the endometrial layer is destroyed or removed during the procedure. To "ablate" (remove) the endometrial lining, a variety of procedures has been devised. The gold standard resectoscopic procedures (laser, transcervical endometrial resection, and rollerball) require hysteroscopic visualization of the uterus and while safe, necessitate expert surgeons. Several innovative procedures have lately been developed, the majority of which may be conducted blindly and take less time. Many nonresectoscopic procedures are still in the process of being developed, refined, and investigated. This article discusses the various techniques and procedures used in endometrial ablation, the importance of the physician using endometrial thinning agents because success rates are higher when thinning agents are used, and the importance of women understanding the complications mainly related to pregnancy. Women should be helped to make informed management decisions by discussing the risks and benefits of each treatment with their consultant. Since there are many treatment options available, with no one option being superior in all respects, patient preference and treatment preferences should be considered when deciding on management.

Interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding; overview of Cochrane reviews and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is excessive menstrual blood loss that interferes with women's quality of life, regardless of the absolute amount of bleeding. It is a very common condition in women of reproductive age, affecting 2 to 5 of every 10 women. Diverse treatments, either medical (hormonal or non-hormonal) or surgical, are currently available for HMB, with different effectiveness, acceptability, costs and side effects. The best treatment will depend on the woman's age, her intention to become pregnant, the presence of other symptoms, and her personal views and preferences.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, systematically assess and summarise all evidence from studies included in Cochrane Reviews on treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), using reviews with comparable participants and outcomes; and to present a ranking of the first- and second-line treatments for HMB.

METHODS

We searched for published Cochrane Reviews of HMB interventions in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, adverse events and the requirement of further treatment. Two review authors independently selected the systematic reviews, extracted data and assessed quality, resolving disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool and evaluated the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods. We grouped the interventions into first- and second-line treatments, considering participant characteristics (desire for future pregnancy, failure of previous treatment, candidacy for surgery). First-line treatments included medical interventions, and second-line treatments included both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and surgical treatments; thus the LNG-IUS is included in both groups. We developed different networks for first- and second-line treatments. We performed network meta-analyses of all outcomes, except for quality of life, where we performed pairwise meta-analyses. We reported the mean rank, the network estimates for mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the certainty of evidence (moderate, low or very low certainty). We also analysed different endometrial ablation and resection techniques separately from the main network: transcervical endometrial resection (TCRE) with or without rollerball, other resectoscopic endometrial ablation (REA), microwave non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (NREA), hydrothermal ablation NREA, bipolar NREA, balloon NREA and other NREA.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library up to July 2021. We updated the reviews that were over two years old. In July 2020, we started the overview with no new reviews about the topic. The included medical interventions were: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), antifibrinolytics (tranexamic acid), combined oral contraceptives (COC), combined vaginal ring (CVR), long-cycle and luteal oral progestogens, LNG-IUS, ethamsylate and danazol (included to provide indirect evidence), which were compared to placebo. Surgical interventions were: open (abdominal), minimally invasive (vaginal or laparoscopic) and unspecified (or surgeon's choice of route of) hysterectomy, REA, NREA, unspecified endometrial ablation (EA) and LNG-IUS. We grouped the interventions as follows. First-line treatments Evidence from 26 studies with 1770 participants suggests that LNG-IUS results in a large reduction of menstrual blood loss (MBL; mean rank 2.4, MD -105.71 mL/cycle, 95% CI -201.10 to -10.33; low certainty evidence); antifibrinolytics probably reduce MBL (mean rank 3.7, MD -80.32 mL/cycle, 95% CI -127.67 to -32.98; moderate certainty evidence); long-cycle progestogen reduces MBL (mean rank 4.1, MD -76.93 mL/cycle, 95% CI -153.82 to -0.05; low certainty evidence), and NSAIDs slightly reduce MBL (mean rank 6.4, MD -40.67 mL/cycle, -84.61 to 3.27; low certainty evidence; reference comparator mean rank 8.9). We are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions and the sensitivity analysis for reduction of MBL, as the evidence was rated as very low certainty. We are uncertain of the true effect of any intervention (very low certainty evidence) on the perception of improvement and satisfaction. Second-line treatments Bleeding reduction is related to the type of hysterectomy (total or supracervical/subtotal), not the route, so we combined all routes of hysterectomy for bleeding outcomes. We assessed the reduction of MBL without imputed data (11 trials, 1790 participants) and with imputed data (15 trials, 2241 participants). Evidence without imputed data suggests that hysterectomy (mean rank 1.2, OR 25.71, 95% CI 1.50 to 439.96; low certainty evidence) and REA (mean rank 2.8, OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29 to 5.66; low certainty evidence) result in a large reduction of MBL, and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.0, OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.53 to 7.23; moderate certainty evidence). Evidence with imputed data suggests hysterectomy results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 1.0, OR 14.31, 95% CI 2.99 to 68.56; low certainty evidence), and NREA probably results in a large reduction of MBL (mean rank 2.2, OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.29 to 6.05; moderate certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the true effect for REA (very low certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea (very low certainty evidence). Evidence from 27 trials with 4284 participants suggests that minimally invasive hysterectomy results in a large increase in satisfaction (mean rank 1.3, OR 7.96, 95% CI 3.33 to 19.03; low certainty evidence), and NREA also increases satisfaction (mean rank 3.6, OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.33; low certainty evidence), but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining interventions (very low certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests LNG-IUS is the best first-line treatment for reducing menstrual blood loss (MBL); antifibrinolytics are probably the second best, and long-cycle progestogens are likely the third best. We cannot make conclusions about the effect of first-line treatments on perception of improvement and satisfaction, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. For second-line treatments, evidence suggests hysterectomy is the best treatment for reducing bleeding, followed by REA and NREA. We are uncertain of the effect on amenorrhoea, as evidence was rated as very low certainty. Minimally invasive hysterectomy may result in a large increase in satisfaction, and NREA also increases satisfaction, but we are uncertain of the true effect of the remaining second-line interventions, as evidence was rated as very low certainty.

Conservative Management of Uterine Fibroid-Related Heavy Menstrual Bleeding and Infertility: Time for a Deeper Mechanistic Understanding and an Individualized Approach

(1) Background: Uterine fibroids are the most common form of benign uterine tumors, causing heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), pelvic pain, infertility and pressure symptoms. Almost a third of women with uterine fibroids seek treatment. The objective of this review is to understand the mechanisms linking fibroids to these symptoms and evaluate different options for their management, particularly the place of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist. (2) Methods: We gathered the most recent and relevant papers on the main fibroid-related symptoms and medical and surgical therapy for their treatment. Those reporting use of oral GnRH antagonists were investigated in detail. (3) Results: The mechanisms explaining myoma-related HMB and infertility were reviewed, as they are essential to a deeper mechanistic understanding and oriented approach. The choice of treatment depends on the number, size, and location of fibroids, and is guided by the patient's age and desire to preserve her fertility. Economic impacts of myomas in terms of direct costs, lost workdays, and complications were found to be significant. Medical, surgical, and non-surgical strategies were analyzed in this context. Novel medical approaches with GnRH antagonist were explored and found to represent an effective new option. (4) Conclusion: The need for alternatives to surgical intervention is very real, especially for women seeking to preserve their fertility. New options now exist, with GnRH antagonists proven to treat fibroid symptoms effectively, opening the door to novel strategies for the management of myomas.

Critical Role of 3D ultrasound in the diagnosis and management of Robert's uterus: a single-centre case series and a review

A septate uterus with a non-communicating hemicavity was first described by Robert in 1969/70 as a specific malformation of the uterus. The condition is commonly associated with a blind uterine hemicavity, unilateral haematometra, a contralateral unicornuate uterine cavity and a normal external uterine fundus. The main symptoms are repetitive attacks of pain at four-weekly intervals around menarche, repeated dysmenorrhea, recurrent pregnancy loss and infertility. In this report, we review the disease, its diagnosis and treatment, and describe five cases of Robert's uterus. Three dimensional (3D) ultrasound (US) imaging was performed by the transvaginal route in four cases. In the fifth case of a 13-year-old girl, we avoided the vaginal route and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 3D transrectal US yielded the correct diagnosis. The following treatment procedures were undertaken: laparoscopic endometrectomy, hysteroscopic septum resection, laparoscopic uterine hemicavity resection and total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH). The diagnosis and optimum treatment of Robert's uterus remains difficult for clinicians because of its rarity. A detailed and careful assessment by 3D US should be performed, followed by hysteroscopy in combination with laparoscopy, to confirm the diagnosis.

Interventions commonly available during pandemics for heavy menstrual bleeding: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

Within the context of heavy menstrual bleeding, pandemics impact upon women's assessment and treatment by healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews evaluating interventions for heavy menstrual bleeding that are commonly available during pandemics.

METHODS

We sought published Cochrane Reviews, evaluating interventions that can continue during pandemics for women with heavy menstrual bleeding with no known underlying cause. We identified Cochrane Reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in June 2020. The primary outcome was menstrual bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, patient satisfaction, side effects, and serious adverse events. We undertook the selection of systematic reviews, data extraction, and quality assessment in duplicate. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. We assessed review quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool, and the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four Cochrane Reviews, with 11 comparisons, data from 44 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and 3196 women. We assessed all the reviews to be high quality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) NSAIDs may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (mean difference (MD) -124 mL per cycle, 95% confidence interval (CI) -186 to -62 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 11 women; low-certainty evidence). Mefenamic acid may be similar to naproxen (MD 21 mL per cycle, 95% CI -6 to 48 mL per cycle; 2 RCTs, 61 women; low-certainty evidence), and NSAIDs may be similar to combined hormonal contraceptives for heavy menstrual bleeding (MD 25 mL per cycle, 95% CI -22 to 73 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 26 women; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may be be less effective in reducing menstrual bleeding than antifibrinolytics (relative risk (RR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.85; 2 RCTs, 161 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether NSAIDs reduce menstrual blood loss more than short-cycle progestogens (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.32; 1 RCT 32 women; very low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics Antifibrinolytics appear to be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo (MD -53 mL per cycle, 95% CI -63 to -44 mL per cycle; 4 RCTs, 565 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.18; 1 RCT, 297 women; low-certainty evidence), and they are probably similar on the incidence of serious adverse events (thrombotic events; RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.46; 2 RCT, 468 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding than short-cycle progestogen (MD -111 mL per cycle, 95% CI -178 mL to -44 mL per cycle; 1 RCT, 46 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to short-cycle progestogens on quality of life (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 1 RCT, 44 women; very low-certainty evidence), patient satisfaction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.39; 1 RCT, 42 women; very low-certainty evidence), or side effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 3 RCTs, 211 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle progestogen (MD -9 points per cycle, 95% CI -30 to 12 points per cycle; 2 RCTs, 184 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may increase self-reported improvement in menstrual bleeding when compared with long-cycle medroxyprogesterone acetate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61; 1 RCT, 94 women; low-certainty evidence). Antifibrinolytics may be similar to long-cycle progestogens on quality of life (MD 5, 95% CI -2.49 to 12.49; 1 RCT, 90 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether antifibrinolytics are similar to long-cycle progestogens on side effects (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.00; 2 RCTs, 184 women; very low-certainty evidence). There were no trials comparing antifibrinolytics to combined hormonal contraceptives. Combined hormonal contraceptives Combined hormonal contraceptives appear to be more effective for heavy menstrual bleeding than placebo or no treatment (RR 13.25, 95% CI 2.94 to 59.64; 2 RCTs, 363 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Combined hormonal contraceptives are probably similar to placebo on the incidence of side effects (RR 1.53, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.60; 2 RCTs, 411 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Progestogens There were no trials comparing progestogens to placebo. Limitations in the evidence included risk of bias in the primary RCTs, inconsistency between the primary RCTs, and imprecision in effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics and combined hormonal contraceptives reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that NSAIDs reduce heavy menstrual bleeding compared with placebo. There is low-certainty evidence that antifibrinolytics are more effective in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding when compared with NSAIDs and short-cycle progestogens, but we are unable to draw conclusions about the effects of antifibrinolytics compared to long-cycle progestogens, on low-certainty evidence.

Hormone therapy for intramural myoma-related infertility from ulipristal acetate to GnRH antagonist: a review

Uterine fibroids may cause infertility, depending on their size and location according to the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics classification. In this review, infertility relating to intramural myomas is evaluated. The mechanisms linking uterine fibroids and infertility are numerous: uterine cavity distortion (fibroids types 0, 1, 2, 2-5); impaired endometrial and myometrial blood supply; increased uterine contractility; hormonal, paracrine and molecular changes; impaired endometrial receptivity in gene expression (decrease in homeobox 10 [HOXA-10] expression); and thicker capsule. The negative effect of intramural myoma is related to myoma size and proximity of the uterine cavity. Therefore, a medical approach could be proposed to reduce the size of the myoma and push it back deep into the myometrium. The relevant medical treatments, including selective progesterone receptor modulator and gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist are reviewed. Even if the mystery surrounding intramural myomas remains, the development of new algorithms for intramural myoma-related infertility, and evaluation of the place of medical treatment as a primary approach are urgently needed. An algorithm, taking into account the mechanisms linking uterine fibroids and infertility, is proposed.

Uterine fibroid management: from the present to the future

Uterine fibroids (also known as leiomyomas or myomas) are the most common form of benign uterine tumors. Clinical presentations include abnormal bleeding, pelvic masses, pelvic pain, infertility, bulk symptoms and obstetric complications.Almost a third of women with leiomyomas will request treatment due to symptoms. Current management strategies mainly involve surgical interventions, but the choice of treatment is guided by patient's age and desire to preserve fertility or avoid 'radical' surgery such as hysterectomy. The management of uterine fibroids also depends on the number, size and location of the fibroids. Other surgical and non-surgical approaches include myomectomy by hysteroscopy, myomectomy by laparotomy or laparoscopy, uterine artery embolization and interventions performed under radiologic or ultrasound guidance to induce thermal ablation of the uterine fibroids.There are only a few randomized trials comparing various therapies for fibroids. Further investigations are required as there is a lack of concrete evidence of effectiveness and areas of uncertainty surrounding correct management according to symptoms. The economic impact of uterine fibroid management is significant and it is imperative that new treatments be developed to provide alternatives to surgical intervention.There is growing evidence of the crucial role of progesterone pathways in the pathophysiology of uterine fibroids due to the use of selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) such as ulipristal acetate (UPA). The efficacy of long-term intermittent use of UPA was recently demonstrated by randomized controlled studies.The need for alternatives to surgical intervention is very real, especially for women seeking to preserve their fertility. These options now exist, with SPRMs which are proven to treat fibroid symptoms effectively. Gynecologists now have new tools in their armamentarium, opening up novel strategies for the management of uterine fibroids.

Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding significantly impairs the quality of life of many otherwise healthy women. Perception of heavy menstrual bleeding is subjective and management usually depends upon what symptoms are acceptable to the individual. Surgical options include conservative surgery (uterine resection or ablation) and hysterectomy. Medical treatment options include oral medication and a hormone-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registers (clinical trials.gov and ICTRP). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing conservative surgery or hysterectomy versus medical therapy (oral or intrauterine) for heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the studies, assessed their risk of bias and extracted the data. Our primary outcomes were menstrual bleeding, satisfaction rate and adverse events. Where appropriate we pooled the data to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a fixed-effect model. We assessed heterogeneity with the I(2) statistic and evaluated the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 parallel-group RCTs (1289 women). Surgical interventions included hysterectomy and endometrial resection or ablation. Medical interventions included oral medication and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUS). The overall quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were lack of blinding, attrition and imprecision. Moreover, it was difficult to interpret long-term study findings as many women randomised to medical interventions subsequently underwent surgery. Surgery versus oral medicationSurgery (endometrial resection) was more effective in controlling bleeding at four months (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.94 to 3.64, one RCT, 186 women, moderate quality evidence) and also at two years (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.57, one RCT, 173 women, low quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34, one RCT, 140 women, very low quality evidence).Satisfaction with treatment was higher in the surgical group at two years (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.74, one RCT, 173 women, moderate quality evidence), but there was no evidence of a difference between the groups at five years (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, one RCT, 114 women, very low quality evidence). There were fewer adverse events in the surgical group at four months (RR 0.26, 95 CI 0.15 to 0.46, one RCT, 186 women). These findings require cautious interpretation, as 59% of women randomised to the oral medication group had had surgery within two years and 77% within five years. Surgery versus LNG-IUSWhen hysterectomy was compared with LNG-IUS, the hysterectomy group were more likely to have objective control of bleeding at one year (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.19, one RCT, 223 women, moderate quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in quality of life between the groups at five or 10 years, but by 10 years 46% of women originally assigned to LNG-IUS had undergone hysterectomy. Adverse effects associated with hysterectomy included surgical complications such as bladder or bowel perforation and vesicovaginal fistula. Adverse effects associated with LNG-IUS were ongoing bleeding and hormonal symptoms.When conservative surgery was compared with LNG-IUS, at one year the surgical group were more likely to have subjective control of bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32, five RCTs, 281 women, low quality evidence, I(2) = 15%). Satisfaction rates were higher in the surgical group at one year (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.04, to 1.28, six RCTs, 442 women, I(2) = 27%), but this finding was sensitive to the choice of statistical model and use of a random-effects model showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between the groups. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in satisfaction rates at two years (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, two RCTs, 117 women, I(2) = 1%).At one year there were fewer adverse events (such as bleeding and spotting) in the surgical group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.82, three RCTs, moderate quality evidence). It was unclear what proportion of women assigned to LNG-IUS underwent surgery over long-term follow-up, as there were few data beyond one year.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Surgery, especially hysterectomy, reduces menstrual bleeding more than medical treatment at one year. There is no conclusive evidence of a difference in satisfaction rates between surgery and LNG-IUS, though adverse effects such as bleeding and spotting are more likely to occur with LNG-IUS. Oral medication suits a minority of women in the long term, and the LNG-IUS device provides a better alternative to surgery in most cases. Although hysterectomy is a definitive treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, it can cause serious complications for a minority of women. Most women may be well advised to try a less radical treatment as first-line therapy. Both LNG-IUS and conservative surgery appear to be safe, acceptable and effective.

Menstrual suppression: current perspectives

Menstrual suppression to provide relief of menstrual-related symptoms or to manage medical conditions associated with menstrual morbidity or menstrual exacerbation has been used clinically since the development of steroid hormonal therapies. Options range from the extended or continuous use of combined hormonal oral contraceptives, to the use of combined hormonal patches and rings, progestins given in a variety of formulations from intramuscular injection to oral therapies to intrauterine devices, and other agents such as gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. The agents used for menstrual suppression have variable rates of success in inducing amenorrhea, but typically have increasing rates of amenorrhea over time. Therapy may be limited by side effects, most commonly irregular, unscheduled bleeding. These therapies can benefit women’s quality of life, and by stabilizing the hormonal milieu, potentially improve the course of underlying medical conditions such as diabetes or a seizure disorder. This review addresses situations in which menstrual suppression may be of benefit, and lists options which have been successful in inducing medical amenorrhea.