Abstract

BACKGROUNDThe symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding has a significant impact on professional, physical and social functioning. In 2021, results from a randomized controlled trial comparing a 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and radiofrequency non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation as treatments for women with heavy menstrual bleeding were published. Both treatment strategies were equally effective in treating heavy menstrual bleeding during a two-year follow-up. However, long-term results are also relevant for both patients and health care providers. OBJECTIVEThe aim of this study was to assess long-term differences in reintervention risk and menstrual blood loss in women with the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding treated according to a strategy starting with a 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system or radiofrequency non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation. STUDY DESIGNThis study was a long-term follow-up study of a multi-center randomized controlled trial (MIRA trial) in which women were allocated to either a 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (n=132) or radiofrequency non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (n=138). Women from the original trial were contacted to fill out six questionnaires. The primary outcome was reintervention rate after allocated treatment. Secondary outcomes included surgical reintervention rate, menstrual bleeding measured by the Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart, (disease-specific) quality of life, sexual function and patient satisfaction. RESULTSFrom the 270 women that were randomized in the original trial, 196 women (52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group: n=94; radiofrequency non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation group: n=102) participated in this long-term follow-up study. Mean follow-up duration was 7.4 years (range 6-9 years). The cumulative reintervention rate (including both medical and surgical reinterventions) was 40.0% (34/85) in the 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 28.7% (27/94) in the radiofrequency non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation group (relative risk: 1.39; 95% confidence interval: 0.92-2.10). The cumulative rate of surgical reinterventions only was significantly higher for patients with a treatment strategy starting with a 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system compared to radiofrequency non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation (35.3% [30/85] vs. 19.1% [18/94]; relative risk: 1.84; 95% confidence interval: 1.11-3.10). However, hysterectomy rate was similar: 11.8% [10/94] in the 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system group and 18.1% [17/102] in the radiofrequency non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation group (relative risk: 0.65; 95% confidence interval: 0.32-1.34). Most reinterventions took place during the first 24 months of follow-up. A total of 171 Pictorial Blood Loss Assessment Chart scores showed a median bleeding score of 0.0. No clinically relevant differences were found regarding quality of life, sexual function and patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONThe overall risk of reintervention after long-term follow-up was not different for women treated according to a treatment strategy starting with a 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system as compared to a strategy starting with radiofrequency non-resectoscopic endometrial ablation. Yet, women allocated to a treatment strategy starting with a 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had a significantly higher risk for surgical reintervention, which was driven by an increase in subsequent endometrial ablation. Both treatment strategies remain effective in lowering menstrual blood loss over the long-term. The results of this long-term follow-up study help physicians to optimize counseling of women suffering from the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding. Optimized counseling will enable women to make a well-informed choice regarding treatment.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.