Hysteroscopic Endometrial Polypectomy: Clinical and Economic Data in Decision Making.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of hysteroscopic polypectomy using mechanical and electrosurgical systems in the hospital operating room and an office-based setting. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). SETTING: Tertiary referral hospital and center for gynecologic care. PATIENTS: Seven hundred and fifty-four women who underwent endometrial polypectomy between January 20, 2015, and April 27, 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Hysteroscopic endometrial polypectomy performed in the same-day hospital setting or office setting using one of the following: bipolar electrode, loop electrode, mechanical device, or hysteroscopic tissue removal system. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The various costs associated with the 2 clinical settings at Palagi Hospital, Florence, Italy were compiled, and a direct cost comparison was made using an activity-based cost-management system. The costs for using reusable loop electrode resection-16 or loop electrode resection-26 were significantly less expensive than using disposable loop electrode resection-27, the tissue removal system, or bipolar electrode resection (p = .0002). Total hospital costs for polypectomy with all systems were significantly less expensive in an office setting compared with same-day surgery in the hospital setting (p = .0001). Office-based hysteroscopic tissue removal was associated with shorter operative time compared with the other procedures (p = .0002) CONCLUSION: The total cost of hysteroscopic polypectomy is markedly higher when using disposable equipment compared with reusable equipment, both in the hospital operating room and the office setting. Same-day hospital or office-based surgery with reusable loop electrode resection is the most cost-effective approach in each settings, but requires experienced surgeons. Finally, the shorter surgical time should be taken into consideration for patients undergoing vaginal polypectomy in the office setting, owing more to patient comfort than to cost savings.

An economic evaluation of outpatient versus inpatient polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis of outpatient uterine polypectomy compared with standard inpatient treatment under general anaesthesia. DESIGN: Economic evaluation carried out alongside the multi-centre, pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled Outpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) trial. The UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective was used in the estimation of costs and the interpretation of results. SETTING: Thirty-one secondary care UK NHS hospitals between April 2008 and July 2011. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred and seven women with abnormal uterine bleeding and hysteroscopically diagnosed endometrial polyps. INTERVENTIONS: Outpatient uterine polypectomy versus standard inpatient treatment. Clinicians were free to choose the technique for polypectomy within the allocated setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient-reported effectiveness of the procedure determined by the women's self-assessment of bleeding at 6 months, and QALY gains at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Inpatient treatment was slightly more effective but more expensive than outpatient treatment, resulting in relatively high incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Intention-to-treat analysis of the base case at 6 months revealed that it cost an additional £9421 per successfully treated patient in the inpatient group and £ 1,099,167 per additional QALY gained, when compared with outpatient treatment. At 12 months, these costs were £22,293 per additional effectively treated patient and £445,867 per additional QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient treatment of uterine polyps associated with abnormal uterine bleeding appears to be more cost-effective than inpatient treatment at willingness-to-pay thresholds acceptable to the NHS. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: HTA-funded OPT trial concluded that outpatient uterine polypectomy is cost-effective compared with inpatient polypectomy.

A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Uterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse, alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy was examined. DESIGN: A multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study. SETTING: Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Women with AUB - defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia) (HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding - and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine polyps. INTERVENTIONS: We randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under general anaesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the woman's assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: At 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were £1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However, patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and procedure acceptability lower. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Why remove all cervical polyps and examine them histologically?

A retrospective analysis of 1366 cervical polyps showed that none had malignant features and 67% were removed from asymptomatic women. A policy removing only cervical polyps from symptomatic women or those with abnormal cervical cytology and limiting histological examination to these polyps would result in significant savings and reduce the small risk of morbidity associated with polypectomy.