Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Máxima MC, Veldhoven, Netherlands; Department of General Practice, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Feb;224(2):187.e1-187.e10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.08.016. Epub 2020 Aug 12.
Heavy menstrual bleeding affects the physical functioning and social well-being of many women. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation are 2 frequently applied treatments in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system with endometrial ablation in women with heavy menstrual bleeding.
This multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial was performed in 26 hospitals and in a network of general practices in the Netherlands. Women with heavy menstrual bleeding, aged 34 years and older, without a pregnancy wish or intracavitary pathology were randomly allocated to treatment with either the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) or endometrial ablation, performed with a bipolar radiofrequency device (NovaSure). The primary outcome was blood loss at 24 months, measured with a Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score. Secondary outcomes included reintervention rates, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and sexual function.
We registered 645 women as eligible, of whom 270 women provided informed consent. Of these, 132 women were allocated to the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 616) and 138 women to endometrial ablation (baseline Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart score, 630). At 24 months, mean Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart scores were 64.8 in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 14.2 in the endometrial ablation group (difference, 50.5 points; 95% confidence interval, 4.3-96.7; noninferiority, P=.87 [25 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart point margin]). Compared with 14 women (10%) in the endometrial ablation group, 34 women (27%) underwent a surgical reintervention in the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group (relative risk, 2.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-4.68). There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction and quality of life between the groups.
Both the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and endometrial ablation strategies lead to a large decrease in menstrual blood loss in women with heavy menstrual bleeding, with comparable quality of life scores after treatment. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in menstrual blood loss in favor of endometrial ablation, and we could not demonstrate noninferiority of starting with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Women who start with the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system, a reversible and less invasive treatment, are at an increased risk of needing additional treatment compared with women who start with endometrial ablation. The results of this study will enable physicians to provide women with heavy menstrual bleeding with the evidence to make a well-informed decision between the 2 treatments.
月经过多会影响许多女性的身体机能和社交生活。左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统和子宫内膜消融术是治疗月经过多的两种常用方法。
本研究旨在比较左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统与子宫内膜消融术治疗月经过多的疗效。
这是一项多中心、随机对照、非劣效性试验,在荷兰的 26 家医院和普通诊所网络中进行。年龄在 34 岁及以上、无妊娠意愿或宫腔内病变的月经过多女性被随机分配接受左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统(Mirena)或双极射频设备(NovaSure)子宫内膜消融术治疗。主要结局是 24 个月时的出血量,采用 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart 评分进行测量。次要结局包括再干预率、患者满意度、生活质量和性功能。
我们登记了 645 名符合条件的女性,其中 270 名女性提供了知情同意。其中,132 名女性被分配到左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统组(基线 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart 评分 616),138 名女性被分配到子宫内膜消融术组(基线 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart 评分 630)。24 个月时,左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统组的平均 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart 评分为 64.8,子宫内膜消融术组为 14.2(差值为 50.5 分;95%置信区间为 4.3-96.7;非劣效性,P=.87[25 分 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart 评分差值])。与子宫内膜消融术组的 14 名(10%)女性相比,左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统组有 34 名(27%)女性需要再次手术干预(相对风险为 2.64;95%置信区间为 1.49-4.68)。两组患者的满意度和生活质量评分无显著差异。
左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统和子宫内膜消融术策略均可显著减少月经过多女性的月经量,治疗后生活质量评分相当。然而,子宫内膜消融术在减少月经量方面有显著优势,我们不能证明使用左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统作为起始治疗具有非劣效性。与起始治疗选择子宫内膜消融术的女性相比,起始治疗选择左炔诺孕酮宫内节育系统的女性需要额外治疗的风险更高。该研究的结果将使医生能够为月经过多的女性提供这两种治疗方法的证据,以便她们做出明智的决策。