Microwave endometrial ablation versus thermal balloon endometrial ablation (MEATBall): 5-year follow up of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term outcomes following microwave endometrial ablation (MEA™) and thermal balloon ablation (TBall). DESIGN: Follow up of a prospective, double-blind randomised controlled trial at 5 years. SETTING: A teaching hospital in the UK. POPULATION: A total of 320 women eligible for and requesting endometrial ablation. METHODS: Eligible women were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo MEA or Tball. Postal questionnaires were sent to participants at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively to determine satisfaction with outcome, menstrual status, bleeding scores and quality of life measurement. Subsequent surgery was ascertained from the women and the hospital operative database. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was overall satisfaction with treatment. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of menstrual loss, change in quality of life scores and subsequent surgery. RESULTS: Of the women originally randomised 217/314 (69.1%) returned questionnaires. Nonresponders were assumed to be treatment failures for data analysis. The primary outcome of satisfaction was similar in both groups (58% for MEA™ versus 53% for TBall, difference 5%; 95% CI -6 to 16%). Amenorrhoea rates were high following both techniques (51% versus 45%, difference 6%; 95% CI -5 to 17%). There was no significant difference in the hysterectomy rates between the two arms (9% versus 7%, difference 2%; 95% CI -5 to 9%). CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years post-treatment there were no significant clinical differences in patient satisfaction, menstrual status, quality of life scores or hysterectomy rates between MEA™ and Thermachoice 3, thermal balloon ablation.

Outpatient microwave endometrial ablation: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial without endometrial preparation versus standard day surgery with endometrial preparation.

The objective was to compare long-term outcomes following outpatient microwave endometrial ablation in the postmenstrual phase with those following day surgery microwave endometrial ablation after standard drug-based endometrial preparation. Of the women originally recruited, 154/197 (78%) returned questionnaires. The primary outcome of satisfaction was high in both groups (71% postmenses versus 65% preparation) as were the amenorrhoea rates (84% versus 87%). There was no significant difference in the hysterectomy rates between the two arms. It can be concluded that microwave endometrial ablation outcomes are not affected in the long term by undertaking the procedure in the postmenstrual phase in an outpatient setting.

A randomised comparison of microwave endometrial ablation with transcervical resection of the endometrium: follow up at a minimum of 10 years.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and further operations at a minimum of 10 years following microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) or transcervical resection of the endometrium (TCRE). DESIGN: Follow up of a randomised controlled trial using postal questionnaires and operative databank review. SETTING: Gynaecology department of a large UK teaching hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's satisfaction with treatment, menstrual symptoms, changes in health-related quality of life, and additional treatments received. RESULTS: One-hundred and eighty-nine of the original 263 women returned questionnaires (72%) after a minimum of 10 years post-treatment. Those totally or generally satisfied with treatment numbered 77/129 (60%) in the microwave arm and 70/134 (52%) in the resection arm, the difference is not statistically significant. Bleeding and pain scores were highly significantly reduced and similar following both MEA and TCRE, achieving amenorrhoea rates of 83 and 88% respectively. The hysterectomy rate after 10 years was significantly different with 22 (17%) in the MEA and 38 (28%) in the TCRE arm (95% CI: -0.21, -0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques achieve significant and comparable improvements in menstrual symptoms, health-related quality of life and high rates of satisfaction. With the known operative advantages, lower costs and fewer hysterectomies, it is clear that MEA is a more effective and efficient treatment for heavy menstrual loss than TCRE.

Clinical outcomes from a randomised comparison of Microwave Endometrial Ablation with Thermal Balloon endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes of microwave endometrial ablation and thermal balloon ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: A double blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: A UK teaching hospital. POPULATION: Three hundred and twenty women requesting endometrial ablation. METHODS: Operative data collection and patient completed postal questionnaires were used to ascertain women's satisfaction with outcome, acceptability of each procedure, changes in menstrual symptoms and health related quality of life and additional treatments received. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were satisfaction and menstrual scores 1 year. Secondary outcomes were operative differences, acceptability of treatment and changes in health related quality of life. RESULTS: Both technologies achieved high levels of satisfaction (-1%, 95% CI (-11, 9)). Menstrual scores were also similar (4%, 95% CI (-7, 19)) Microwave had a significantly shorter operating time, reduced usage of antiemetics and opiate analgesia, increased discharge by 6 hours and fewer device failures. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments are acceptable to women, with high levels of satisfaction. Microwave is quicker to perform with faster hospital discharge.

Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena® for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this project was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hysterectomy, first- and second-generation endometrial ablation (EA), and Mirena® (Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of existing randomised controlled trials to determine the short- to medium-term effects of hysterectomy, EA and Mirena. A population-based retrospective cohort study based on record linkage to investigate the long-term effects of ablative techniques and hysterectomy in terms of failure rates and complications. Cost-effectiveness analysis of hysterectomy versus first- and second-generation ablative techniques and Mirena. SETTING: Data from women treated for heavy menstrual bleeding were obtained from national and international trials. Scottish national data were obtained from the Scottish Information Services Division. PARTICIPANTS: Women who were undergoing treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were included. INTERVENTIONS: Hysterectomy, first- and second-generation EA, and Mirena. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction, recurrence of symptoms, further surgery and costs. RESULTS: Data from randomised trials indicated that at 12 months more women were dissatisfied with first-generation EA than hysterectomy [odds ratio (OR): 2.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54 to 3.93; p = 0.0002), but hospital stay [WMD (weighted mean difference) 3.0 days, 95% CI 2.9 to 3.1 days; p < 0.00001] and time to resumption of normal activities (WMD 5.2 days, 95% CI 4.7 to 5.7 days; p < 0.00001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes associated with first- and second-generation techniques were comparable [12.2% (123/1006) vs 10.6% (110/1034); OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.62; p = 0.2). Rates of dissatisfaction with Mirena and second-generation EA were similar [18.1% (17/94) vs 22.5% (23/102); OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.53; p = 0.4]. Indirect estimates suggested that hysterectomy was also preferable to second-generation EA (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.24; p = 0.006) in terms of patient dissatisfaction. The evidence to suggest that hysterectomy is preferable to Mirena was weaker (OR 2.22, 95% CI 0.94 to 5.29; p = 0.07). In women treated by EA or hysterectomy and followed up for a median [interquartile range (IQR)] duration of 6.2 (2.7-10.8) and 11.6 (7.9-14.8) years, respectively, 962/11,299 (8.5%) women originally treated by EA underwent further gynaecological surgery. While the risk of adnexal surgery was similar in both groups [adjusted hazards ratio 0.80 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.15)], women who had undergone ablation were less likely to need pelvic floor repair [adjusted hazards ratio 0.62 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.77)] and tension-free vaginal tape surgery for stress urinary incontinence [adjusted hazards ratio 0.55 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.74)]. Abdominal hysterectomy led to a lower chance of pelvic floor repair surgery [hazards ratio 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.64)] than vaginal hysterectomy. The incidence of endometrial cancer following EA was 0.02%. Hysterectomy was the most cost-effective treatment. It dominated first-generation EA and, although more expensive, produced more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) than second-generation EA and Mirena. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for hysterectomy compared with Mirena and hysterectomy compared with second-generation ablation were £1440 per additional QALY and £970 per additional QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer hospital stay and time to resumption of normal activities, more women were satisfied after hysterectomy than after EA. The few data available suggest that Mirena is potentially cheaper and more effective than first-generation ablation techniques, with rates of satisfaction that are similar to second-generation techniques. Owing to a paucity of trials, there is limited evidence to suggest that hysterectomy is preferable to Mirena. The risk of pelvic floor surgery is higher in women treated by hysterectomy than by ablation. Although the most cost-effective strategy, hysterectomy may not be considered an initial option owing to its invasive nature and higher risk of complications. Future research should focus on evaluation of the clinical effectivesness and cost-effectiveness of the best second-generation EA technique under local anaesthetic versus Mirena and types of hysterectomy such as laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus conventional hysterectomy and second-generation EA. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Hysterectomy, endometrial destruction, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for heavy menstrual bleeding: systematic review and meta-analysis of data from individual patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative effectiveness of hysterectomy, endometrial destruction (both "first generation" hysteroscopic and "second generation" non-hysteroscopic techniques), and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) in the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of data from individual patients, with direct and indirect comparisons made on the primary outcome measure of patients' dissatisfaction. DATA SOURCES: Data were sought from the 30 randomised controlled trials identified after a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, and CINAHL databases, reference lists, and contact with experts. Raw data were available from 2814 women randomised into 17 trials (seven trials including 1359 women for first v second generation endometrial destruction; six trials including 1042 women for hysterectomy v first generation endometrial destruction; one trial including 236 women for hysterectomy v Mirena; three trials including 177 women for second generation endometrial destruction v Mirena). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing hysterectomy, first and second generation endometrial destruction, and Mirena for women with heavy menstrual bleeding unresponsive to other medical treatment. RESULTS: At around 12 months, more women were dissatisfied with outcome with first generation hysteroscopic techniques than with hysterectomy (13% v 5%; odds ratio 2.46, 95% confidence interval 1.54 to 3.9, P<0.001), but hospital stay (weighted mean difference 3.0 days, 2.9 to 3.1 days, P<0.001) and time to resumption of normal activities (5.2 days, 4.7 to 5.7 days, P<0.001) were longer for hysterectomy. Unsatisfactory outcomes were comparable with first and second generation techniques (odds ratio 1.2, 0.9 to 1.6, P=0.2), although second generation techniques were quicker (weighted mean difference 14.5 minutes, 13.7 to 15.3 minutes, P<0.001) and women recovered sooner (0.48 days, 0.20 to 0.75 days, P<0.001), with fewer procedural complications. Indirect comparison suggested more unsatisfactory outcomes with second generation techniques than with hysterectomy (11% v 5%; odds ratio 2.3, 1.3 to 4.2, P=0.006). Similar estimates were seen when Mirena was indirectly compared with hysterectomy (17% v 5%; odds ratio 2.2, 0.9 to 5.3, P=0.07), although this comparison lacked power because of the limited amount of data available for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: More women are dissatisfied after endometrial destruction than after hysterectomy. Dissatisfaction rates are low after all treatments, and hysterectomy is associated with increased length of stay in hospital and a longer recovery period. Definitive evidence on effectiveness of Mirena compared with more invasive procedures is lacking.