Tranexamic acid: a potential adjunct to resectoscopic endometrial ablation

Comparison of Bipolar Ball Endometrial Ablation and Transcervical Resection of the Endometrium in the Treatment of Heavy Menstrual Bleeding: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives

To compare the operative time, effectiveness, and patient satisfaction between ball endometrial ablation and transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE) using a bipolar resectoscope.

Materials and Methods

Forty-four women with heavy menstrual bleeding who were unresponsive to at least 3 months' medical management were included in this randomized, controlled clinical trial. After randomization, patients underwent either TCRE or ball endometrial ablation using a bipolar resectoscope. The operative time, fluid deficit, and postoperative pain were recorded. The patients were evaluated postoperatively at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery. Patient satisfaction, amenorrhea rate, reintervention rate, and pictorial blood-loss-assessment chart (PBAC) score were compared between the two groups.

Results

The mean operative time in ball endometrial ablation group was 11.17 ± 2.24 min and in TCRE group was 22.33 ± 5.26 min (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the postoperative PBAC score, amenorrhea rates, patient satisfaction, and need for reintervention between the two groups.

Conclusion

Operative time with ball endometrial ablation is significantly less when compared to TCRE when using a bipolar resectoscope.

Tranexamic acid in gynecologic surgery

Objective: To review the mechanism of action, pharmacology, dosing, and complications of tranexamic acid (TXA) and consolidate current evidence for TXA in gynecologic surgery.Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), Google Scholar, and Elsevier was performed, in addition to a targeted search of cited references involving TXA and gynecologic surgery. Preference was given to systematic reviews and randomized control trials (RCTs).Results: TXA reversibly binds to plasminogen, preventing clot degradation. RCTs on hysterectomy, myomectomy, cervical conisation, hysteroscopy, and surgery for cervical and ovarian cancer were identified, as were case reports on TXA use for ectopic pregnancy. During hysterectomy, TXA reduces blood loss (two RCTs, n = 432, mean difference -66.0 mL and 180 mL), blood transfusion (1 RCT, n = 100, 12% vs. 42%, p < .00001). For myomectomy, a systematic review and meta-analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in blood loss with TXA (two RCTs, mean difference -213.1 mL, 95% CI: -242.4 mL to -183.7 mL). Following cervical conisation, TXA decreased the risk of delayed hemorrhage (four RCTs, RR 0.23, 95% CI: 0.11-0.50). A single RCT for cervical and ovarian cancer surgery demonstrated a decrease mean blood loss of 120 mL-135 mL and 210 mL, respectively, and fewer blood transfusions for the latter (OR 0.44, upper 95% CI: 0.97, p = .02). Less robust data suggest a possible benefit from TXA during hysteroscopy and surgery for ectopic pregnancies. Most commonly, 1 g of intravenous TXA is given intraoperatively.Conclusion: TXA is a safe adjunct that can be considered in a variety of gynecologic surgeries to decrease blood loss and risk of blood transfusion.

Pictorial methods to assess heavy menstrual bleeding in research and clinical practice: a systematic literature review

Background

Pictorial blood loss assessment charts (PBACs) represent the most widely used method to assess menstrual blood loss (MBL) in clinical trials. The aims of this review were to: (1) determine the diagnostic accuracy of PBACs that have been validated against the reference alkaline hematin technique; (2) categorize the pitfalls of using obsolete and nonvalidated charts; (3) provide guidelines for development of a new PBAC or use of an existing chart to measure MBL in clinical trials; and (4) consider the feasibility of using pictorial charts in primary care.

Methods

A literature review was conducted using Embase and MEDLINE databases. The review identified reports of women with self-perceived or actual heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB), bleeding disorders, abnormal uterine bleeding, leiomyomata (uterine fibroids) or endometriosis, and women undergoing treatment for HMB, as well as those with normal menstrual periods. Data were reviewed from studies that focused on the development and validation of PBACs and from those that used derivative noncertified charts to assess HMB.

Results

Nine studies reported validation of PBAC scoring systems against the alkaline hematin technique. Across these studies, the sensitivity was 58–97%, the specificity was 7.5–95.5%, the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 1.1–13.8 and 0.14–0.56, respectively, and the diagnostic odds ratio was 2.6–52.4. The cut-off score above which the diagnosis of HMB was made ranged from 50 to 185. Several modifications of these PBACs were used in other studies; however, objective confirmation of their validity was not reported. Overall, there was widespread inconsistency of chart design, scoring systems, diagnostic cut-off limits and post-treatment outcome measures.

Conclusions

PBACs are best suited to the controlled and specific environment of clinical studies, where clinical outcome parameters are defined. The current lack of standardization precludes widespread use of the PBAC in primary care.

Review registration number

PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews: CRD42016030083.

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.