Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system vs. transcervical endometrial resection for dysfunctional uterine bleeding

Incidence and impact of anticoagulation-associated abnormal menstrual bleeding in women after venous thromboembolism

Preliminary data and clinical experience have suggested an increased risk of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) in women of reproductive age treated with anticoagulants, but solid data are lacking. The TEAM-VTE study was an international multicenter prospective cohort study in women aged 18 to 50 years diagnosed with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). Menstrual blood loss was measured by pictorial blood loss assessment charts at baseline for the last menstrual cycle before VTE diagnosis and prospectively for each cycle during 3 to 6 months of follow-up. AUB was defined as an increased score on the pictorial blood loss assessment chart (>100 or >150) or self-reported AUB. AUB-related quality of life (QoL) was assessed at baseline and the end of follow-up using the Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire. The study was terminated early because of slow recruitment attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 98 women, 65 (66%) met at least one of the 3 definitions of AUB during follow-up (95% confidence interval [CI], 57%-75%). AUB occurred in 60% of women (36 of 60) without AUB before VTE diagnosis (new-onset AUB; 95% CI, 47%-71%). Overall, QoL decreased over time, with a mean Menstrual Bleeding Questionnaire score increase of 5.1 points (95% CI, 2.2-7.9), but this decrease in QoL was observed only among women with new-onset AUB. To conclude, 2 of every 3 women who start anticoagulation for acute VTE experience AUB, with a considerable negative impact on QoL. These findings should be a call to action to increase awareness and provide evidence-based strategies to prevent and treat AUB in this setting. This was an academic study registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04748393; no funding was received.

Progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) impacts the quality of life of otherwise healthy women. The perception of HMB is subjective and management depends upon, among other factors, the severity of the symptoms, a woman's age, her wish to get pregnant, and the presence of other pathologies. Heavy menstrual bleeding was classically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. Currently the definition is based on the woman's perception of excessive bleeding which is affecting her quality of life. The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss: users of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) reported reductions of up to 90%. Insertion may, however, be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL (from inception to June 2019); and we searched grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in women of reproductive age treated with LNG-IUS devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and conducted GRADE assessments of the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 RCTs (2511 women). Limitations in the evidence included risk of attrition bias and low numbers of participants. The studies compared the following interventions. LNG-IUS versus other medical therapy The other medical therapies were norethisterone acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid, tranexamic acid or usual medical treatment (where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable). The LNG-IUS may improve HMB, lowering menstrual blood loss according to the alkaline haematin method (mean difference (MD) 66.91 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) 42.61 to 91.20; 2 studies, 170 women; low-certainty evidence); and the Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; 3 studies, 335 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS may have any effect on women's satisfaction up to one year (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.63; 3 studies, 141 women; I² = 0%, very low-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS probably leads to slightly higher quality of life measured with the SF-36 compared with other medical therapy if (MD 2.90, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.74; 1 study: 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence) or with the Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MD 13.40, 95% CI 9.89 to 16.91; 1 trial, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The LNG-IUS and other medical therapies probably give rise to similar numbers of women with serious adverse events (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 1 study, 571 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women using other medical therapy are probably more likely to withdraw from treatment for any reason (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.60; 1 study, 571 women, moderate-certainty evidence) and to experience treatment failure than women with LNG-IUS (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.44; 6 studies, 535 women; moderate-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus endometrial resection or ablation (EA) Bleeding outcome results are inconsistent. We are uncertain of the effect of the LNG-IUS compared to EA on rates of amenorrhoea (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.72; 8 studies, 431 women; I² = 21%; low-certainty evidence) and hypomenorrhoea (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.33; 4 studies, 200 women; low-certainty evidence) and eumenorrhoea (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.00; 3 studies, 160 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether both treatments may have similar rates of satisfaction with treatment at 12 months (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07; 5 studies, 317 women; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if the LNG-IUS compared to EA has any effect on quality of life, measured with SF-36 (MD -14.40, 95% CI -22.63 to -6.17; 1 study, 33 women; very low-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS compared with EA are probably more likely to have any adverse event (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.94; 3 studies, 201 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Women with the LNG-IUS may experience more treatment failure compared to EA at one year follow up (persistent HMB or requirement of additional treatment) (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.90; 5 studies, 320 women; low-certainty evidence); or requirement of hysterectomy may be higher at one year follow up (RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.48 to 4.42; 3 studies, 400 women; low-certainty evidence). LNG-IUS versus hysterectomy We are uncertain whether the LNG-IUS has any effect on HMB compared with hysterectomy (RR for amenorrhoea 0.52, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.70; 1 study, 75 women; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is difference between LNG-IUS and hysterectomy in satisfaction at five years (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.08; 1 study, 232 women; low-certainty evidence) and quality of life (SF-36 MD 2.20, 95% CI -2.93 to 7.33; 1 study, 221 women; low-certainty evidence). Women in the LNG-IUS group may be more likely to have treatment failure requiring hysterectomy for HMB at 1-year follow-up compared to the hysterectomy group (RR 48.18, 95% CI 2.96 to 783.22; 1 study, 236 women; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported cost data suitable for meta-analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The LNG-IUS may improve HMB and quality of life compared to other medical therapy; the LNG-IUS is probably similar for HMB compared to endometrial destruction techniques; and we are uncertain if it is better or worse than hysterectomy. The LNG-IUS probably has similar serious adverse events to other medical therapy and it is more likely to have any adverse events than EA.

Abnormal Uterine Bleeding

Abnormal uterine bleeding is a frequent condition in Gynecology. It may impact physical, emotional sexual and professional aspects of the lives of women, impairing their quality of life. In cases of acute and severe bleeding, women may need urgent treatment with volumetric replacement and prescription of hemostatic substances. In some specific cases with more intense and prolonged bleeding, surgical treatment may be necessary. The objective of this chapter is to describe the main evidence on the treatment of women with abnormal uterine bleeding, both acute and chronic. Didactically, the treatment options were based on the current International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) classification system (PALM-COEIN). The etiologies of PALM-COEIN are: uterine Polyp (P), Adenomyosis (A), Leiomyoma (L), precursor and Malignant lesions of the uterine body (M), Coagulopathies (C), Ovulatory dysfunction (O), Endometrial dysfunction (E), Iatrogenic (I), and Not yet classified (N). The articles were selected according to the recommendation grades of the PubMed, Cochrane and Embase databases, and those in which the main objective was the reduction of uterine menstrual bleeding were included. Only studies written in English were included. All editorial or complete papers that were not consistent with abnormal uterine bleeding, or studies in animal models, were excluded. The main objective of the treatment is the reduction of menstrual flow and morbidity and the improvement of quality of life. It is important to emphasize that the treatment in the acute phase aims to hemodynamically stabilize the patient and stop excessive bleeding, while the treatment in the chronic phase is based on correcting menstrual dysfunction according to its etiology and clinical manifestations. The treatment may be surgical or pharmacological, and the latter is based mainly on hormonal therapy, anti-inflammatory drugs and antifibrinolytics.

Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding

BACKGROUND

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women and it accounts for 12% of all gynaecology referrals in the UK. Heavy menstrual bleeding is clinically defined as greater than or equal to 80 mL of blood loss per menstrual cycle. However, women may complain of excessive bleeding when their blood loss is less than 80 mL. Hysterectomy is often used to treat women with this complaint but medical therapy may be a successful alternative.The intrauterine device was originally developed as a contraceptive but the addition of progestogens to these devices resulted in a large reduction in menstrual blood loss. Case studies of two types of progesterone or progestogen-releasing systems, Progestasert and Mirena, reported reductions of up to 90% and improvements in dysmenorrhoea (pain or cramps during menstruation). Insertion, however, may be regarded as invasive by some women, which affects its acceptability as a treatment. Frequent intermenstrual bleeding and spotting is also likely during the first few months after commencing treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, acceptability and safety of progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices in achieving a reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding.

SEARCH METHODS

All randomised controlled trials of progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained by electronic searches of The Cochrane Library, the specialised register of MDSG, MEDLINE (1966 to January 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January 2015), CINAHL (inception to December 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to January 2015). Additional searches were undertaken for grey literature and for unpublished trials in trial registers. Companies producing progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices and experts in the field were contacted for information on published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in women of reproductive age treated with progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine devices versus no treatment, placebo, or other medical or surgical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding within primary care, family planning or specialist clinic settings were eligible for inclusion. Women with postmenopausal bleeding, intermenstrual or irregular bleeding, or pathological causes of heavy menstrual bleeding were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Potential trials were independently assessed by at least two review authors. The review authors extracted the data independently and data were pooled where appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were estimated from the data for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. The primary outcomes were reduction in menstrual blood loss and satisfaction; in addition, rate of adverse effects, changes in quality of life, failure of treatment and withdrawal from treatment were also assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 RCTs (2082 women). The included trials mostly assessed the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) (no conclusions could be reached from one small study assessing Progestasert which was discontinued in 2001) and so conclusions are based only on LNG IUS. Comparisons were made with placebo, oral medical treatment, endometrial destruction techniques and hysterectomy. Ratings for the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison ranged from very low to high. Limitations in the evidence included inadequate reporting of study methods and inconsistency.Seven studies compared the LNG IUS with oral medical therapy: either norethisterone acetate (NET) administered over most of the menstrual cycle, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (administered for 10 days), the oral contraceptive pill, mefenamic acid or usual medical treatment where participants could choose the oral treatment that was most suitable. The LNG IUS was more effective at reducing HMB as measured by the alkaline haematin method (MD 66.91 mL, 95% CI 42.61 to 91.20; two studies, 170 women; I(2) = 81%, low quality evidence) or by Pictorial Bleeding Assessment Chart (PBAC) scores (MD 55.05, 95% CI 27.83 to 82.28; three studies, 335 women; I(2) = 79%, low quality evidence), improving quality of life and a greater number of women continued with their treatment at two years when compared with oral treatment. Although substantial heterogeneity was identified for the bleeding outcomes, the direction of effect consistently favoured the LNG IUS. There was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions on satisfaction. Minor adverse effects (such as pelvic pain, breast tenderness and ovarian cysts) were more common with the LNG IUS.Ten studies compared the LNG IUS with endometrial destruction techniques: three with transcervical resection, one with rollerball ablation and six with thermal balloon ablation. Evidence was inconsistent and very low quality with respect to reduction in bleeding outcomes and satisfaction was comparable between treatments (low and moderate quality evidence). Improvements in quality of life were experienced with both types of treatment. Minor adverse events were more common with the LNG IUS overall, but it appeared more cost effective compared to thermal ablation within a two-year time frame in one study.Three studies compared the LNG IUS with hysterectomy. The LNG IUS was not as successful at reducing HMB as hysterectomy (high quality evidence). The women in these studies reported improved quality of life, regardless of treatment. In spite of the high rate of surgical treatment in those having LNG IUS within 10 years, the LNG IUS was more cost effective than hysterectomy.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG IUS) is more effective than oral medication as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). It is associated with a greater reduction in HMB, improved quality of life and appears to be more acceptable long term but is associated with more minor adverse effects than oral therapy.When compared to endometrial ablation, it is not clear whether the LNG IUS offers any benefits with regard to reduced HMB and satisfaction rates and quality of life measures were similar. Some minor adverse effects were more common with the LNG IUS but it appeared to be more cost effective than endometrial ablation techniques.The LNG IUS was less effective than hysterectomy in reducing HMB. Both treatments improved quality of life but the LNG IUS appeared more cost effective than hysterectomy for up to 10 years after treatment.

Individualized vaginal bleeding experience of women with uterine fibroids in the PEARL I randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of ulipristal acetate or placebo

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the individualized bleeding experience of women with fibroids and anaemia in a 3 month randomized placebo controlled trial (PEARL I) of the selective progesterone receptor modulator (SPRM), ulipristal acetate (UPA)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In contrast to continuing excessive regular menstruation in the placebo group, a majority of women treated with UPA (63.1% of those on 5 mg/day and 71.3% of those on 10 mg/day) experienced the rapid onset of amenorrhoea or minimal blood loss [pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC) < 12]. The remainder experienced various patterns of bleeding and intensity of blood loss that are described for the first time, including an association of irregular bleeding on UPA with sub-mucous fibroids.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The majority experience on UPA is amenorrhoea but the bleeding experience of the others has not been characterized.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A 13 week randomized controlled trial in women, eligible for surgery for uterine fibroids and anaemia, comparing placebo (n = 48), UPA 5 mg (n = 95) or UPA 10 mg (n = 94). The treatment aim was fibroid shrinkage and the primary definitions and outcomes are published elsewhere; here the secondary outcome measure of vaginal bleeding pattern is described.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Women, 18-50 years old, with fibroids and haemoglobin ≤10.2 g/dl, justifying surgery. At least one fibroid was 3-10 cm diameter and uterus ≤16 weeks pregnancy size. All used the daily PBAC methodology in a screening cycle (Ps) and throughout treatment, and for the 4 weeks preceding Week 26 and Week 38 in those who did not have surgery. An excessive menstruation is PBAC > 100. The bleeding patterns were characterized using the classification of Belsey, developed under auspices of WHO.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In the placebo group, all women had an excessive screening PBAC [median 376; interquartile range (IQR) 241-574]; 81.3% of them had regular menstrual bleeding and the intensity of bleeding remained similar, so that the median PBAC in the next three periods was 90, 92 and 93% of the screening value. Four of the 48 women had spontaneous improvement in bleeding and one developed amenorrhoea and elevation of gonadotrophins. In the placebo group, 22 women provided Week 26 and 21 women provided Week 38 PBAC data. The median Week 26 PBAC (312: IQR 102-524) and Week 38 PBAC (236; IQR 103-465) indicated ongoing excessive bleeding. In the UPA group, screening PBAC confirmed excessive bleeding (UPA 5 mg, median 358; IQR 232-621; UPA 10 mg, median 330; IQR 235-542). UPA was initiated from the start of a menstruation (P1) and no women had regular periods on treatment. Following P1 through the whole of the remaining 13 weeks of UPA treatment amenorrhoea or minimal loss (PBAC < 12 for whole phase) occurred in 63.1% (UPA 5 mg) or 71.3% (UPA 10 mg). The characterization of the individualized bleeding experience of the remaining women on 5 mg and 10 mg UPA, respectively, were infrequent bleeding in 17.9 and 12.8%; frequent or prolonged bleeding or both in 12.7 and 11.7% and irregular bleeding in 5.3 and 3.2%. In those with prolonged, frequent or irregular bleeding there was a high chance that sub-mucous fibroids were present (UPA 5 mg 100% and UPA 10 mg 78.6%) but no correlation with progesterone receptor modulator-associated endometrial changes.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The follow-up PBAC data at Week 26 and Week 38 are only valid for women who did not have surgical intervention. These groups may not be representative of the groups at screening.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This first detailed description of these SPRM bleeding patterns provides clinicians with an indication of potential responses in women using the SPRM UPA and provides an extended definition of bleeding in untreated women with excessive bleeding and fibroids.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funded by PregLem/Gedeon Richter. D.H.B. is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of PregLem, and in this role participated in the study design and supervision. Stock originally held in PregLem was given up when PregLem was incorporated into Gedeon Richter; D.H.B. does not currently hold stock. M.A.L. has received payment from Gideon Richter to attend a meeting to present these data (Barcelona, April 2013) but no financial support in preparing the manuscript. B.C.J.M.F. is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of PregLem and has received fees and grant support from the following companies: Andromed, Ardana, Auxogyn, Ferring, Genovum, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem, Roche, Schering, Schering Plough, Serono, Watson Laboratories and Wyeth. P.T. is a paid statistical consultant for PregLem SA. E.B. is a full time employee of PregLem and received payment from stocks sold in October 2010 from the company's full acquisition by Gedeon Richter Group.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00755755 (PEARL I).

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding: a 6- and 12-month morphological and clinical follow-up

BACKGROUND

Abnormal uterine bleeding is defined as any alteration in the pattern or volume of menstrual blood flow, and it is preferably treated using hysterectomy, endometrial destruction or the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena(®) ). Recently, it has been demonstrated that studies of Mirena(®) were generally small and consequently imprecise.

AIMS

Our study was aimed at assessing the effects of a slow-release levonorgestrel (20 μg/day) intrauterine device in fertile and postmenopausal women experiencing abnormal uterine bleeding that did not respond to traditional medical management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 40 women, of whom 24 were of reproductive capacity and 16 were postmenopausal, were enrolled in the trial. Removal of the intrauterine device was required for only 2 of the 24 fertile women and for only 3 of the 16 postmenopausal women. After 6 and 12 months of treatment, the remaining women were clinically evaluated and underwent ultrasound and hysteroscopy using biopsy specimens as a control. The EuroQol Group EQ-5D questionnaire was used for evaluation of quality of life.

RESULTS

The device showed good tolerability and efficacy. It resulted in a reduction in the endometrial mucosal thickness with a regression of bleeding and collateral effects, which were more evident after 12 months of treatment. A positive effect of the device on the woman's quality of life was demonstrated.

CONCLUSIONS

The slow-release levonorgestrel intrauterine device may be a valid therapeutic tool for treating basic symptomatology and increasing quality of life in women with abnormal uterine bleeding.

Effect of myoma size on failure of thermal balloon ablation or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system treatment in women with menorrhagia

Objective

The aim of the present study was to identify variables associated with treatment failure in women with menorrhagia who were treated with thermal balloon ablation (TBA) or levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS), and to determine if there are subgroups where one treatment type is more effective than the other.

Methods

The study included 106 women with menorrhagia who were treated with TBA or LNG-IUS at the study institute between January 2003 and December 2007, with a follow-up period greater than 12 months. Data were collected by retrospective review of medical records. Treatment failure was defined as persistent or recurrent menorrhagia within one year after treatment or hysterectomy at any time during follow-up. The relationships between variables and treatment outcome were analyzed using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. The treatment outcome of TBA was compared with LNG-IUS.

Results

Sixty-seven women were treated with TBA and 39 women were managed with LNG-IUS. Fifty-two women had a myoma ≥2.5 cm. Treatment failure was observed in 24 women (2 recurrent or persistent menorrhagia and 22 hysterectomies) and myoma size (≥2.5 cm vs. <2.5 cm) was associated with treatment outcome. TBA and LNG-IUS showed similar treatment outcomes.

Conclusion

A large myoma is a risk factor for treatment failure in women with menorrhagia treated with TBA or LNG-IUS.

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in heavy menstrual bleeding: a benefit-risk review

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem in women of reproductive age and can cause irritation, inconvenience, self-consciousness and fear of social embarrassment. Our objective was to review and appraise literature identified from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to evaluate the clinical evidence and provide an update on the risks and benefits of using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the treatment of HMB. The LNG-IUS consistently reduces menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women with HMB, including those with underlying uterine pathology or bleeding disorders. The available data suggest that it reduces MBL to a greater extent than other medical therapies, including combined oral contraceptives, oral progestogens (both short- or long-cycle regimens), tranexamic acid and oral mefenamic acid. In addition, the LNG-IUS and endometrial ablation appear to reduce MBL to a similar extent. The adverse effects reported with the LNG-IUS in women with HMB are similar to those typically observed in women using the system for contraception. Uterine perforations were not reported in any of the studies reviewed, but expulsion rates may be higher than in the general population of LNG-IUS users. Overall, the LNG-IUS has a positive effect on most quality-of-life domains, at least comparable to those achieved with hysterectomy or endometrial ablation, and is consistently a cost-effective option across a variety of countries and settings. In conclusion, the LNG-IUS is an effective treatment option for women with HMB, including those with underlying organic pathology or bleeding disorders.

A randomized clinical trial to compare levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) vs trans-cervical endometrial resection for treatment of menorrhagia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the acceptability, efficacy, adverse effects, and user satisfaction of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and trans-cervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) for the treatment of menorrhagia.

METHOD

104 women with menorrhagia were divided into 2 groups: 52 women had the LNG-IUS inserted and 52 underwent TCRE. Menstrual pattern, pictorial blood loss assessment chart score, adverse effects, and rates of acceptability and satisfaction, were recorded at 6 and 12 months after the procedure.

RESULTS

After a year there were reductions of 93.9% and 88.4% in menstrual blood loss in the TCRE and LNG-IUS groups, respectively. Amenorrhea was more common in the TCRE group and spotting and systemic effects in the LNG-IUS group. Satisfaction rates of the TCRE group were higher than the LNG-IUS group (80.8% vs 69.2%), but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Although both treatments were found to be equally effective, LNG-IUS was less invasive and can be advised for younger women with a desire to preserve fertility.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation in heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and endometrial ablation in reducing heavy menstrual bleeding.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and EMBASE were searched online using Ovid up to January 2009, as well as the reference lists of published articles, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the levonorgestrel intrauterine system with endometrial ablation in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

This systematic review and meta-analysis was restricted to randomized controlled trials in which menstrual blood loss was reported using pictorial blood loss assessment chart scores.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Six randomized controlled trials that included 390 women (levonorgestrel intrauterine system, n=196; endometrial ablation, n=194) were retrieved. Three studies pertained to first-generation endometrial ablation (manual hysteroscopy) and three to second-generation endometrial ablation (thermal balloon). Study characteristics and quality were recorded for each study. Data on the effect of treatment on pictorial blood loss assessment chart scores were abstracted, integrated with meta-analysis techniques, and presented as weighted mean differences. Both treatment modalities were associated with similar reductions in menstrual blood loss after 6 months (weighted mean difference, -31.96 pictorial blood loss assessment chart score [95% confidence interval (CI), -65.96 to 2.04]), 12 months (weighted mean difference, 7.45 pictorial blood loss assessment chart score [95% CI, -12.37 to 27.26]), and 24 months (weighted mean difference, -26.70 pictorial blood loss assessment chart score [95% CI, -78.54 to 25.15]). In addition, both treatments were generally associated with similar improvements in quality of life in five studies that reported this as an outcome. No major complications occurred with either treatment modality in these small trials.

CONCLUSION

Based on the meta-analysis of six randomized clinical trials, the efficacy of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system in the management of heavy menstrual bleeding appears to have similar therapeutic effects to that of endometrial ablation up to 2 years after treatment.