Clinical Review

2020 Update on abnormal uterine bleeding

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

Endometrial ablation: New evidence informs when it could (and could not) be the best option

Bergeron C, Laberge PY, Boutin A, et al. Endometrial ablation or resection versus levonorgestrel intra-uterine system for the treatment of women with heavy menstrual bleeding and a normal uterine cavity: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2020;26:302-311.

Vitale SG, Ferrero S, Ciebiera M, et al. Hysteroscopic endometrial resection vs hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding: impact on quality of life and sexuality. Evidence from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020;32:159-165.

Two systematic reviews evaluated the efficacy of EA in women with abnormal uterine bleeding. One compared EA with the LNG-IUD and reported on safety and efficacy, while the other compared EA with hysterectomy and reported on quality of life.

Bergeron and colleagues reviewed 13 studies that included 884 women to compare the efficacy and safety of EA or resection with the LNG-IUD for the treatment of premenopausal women with AUB.3 They found no significant differences between EA and the LNG-IUD in terms of subsequent hysterectomy (risk ratio [RR] = 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-2.11). It was not surprising that, when looking at age, EA was associated with a higher risk for hysterectomy in women younger than age 42 (RR = 5.26; 95% CI, 1.21-22.91). Conversely, subsequent hysterectomy was less likely with EA compared to LNG-IUD use in women older than 42 years. However, statistical significance was not reached in the older group (RR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.21-1.24).

In the systematic review by Vitale and colleagues, 9 studies met inclusion criteria for a comparison of EA and hysterectomy, with the objective of ascertaining improvement in quality of life and several other measures.4

Although there was significant heterogeneity between assessment tools, both treatment groups experienced similar improvements in quality of life during the first year. However, hysterectomy was more advantageous in terms of improving uterine bleeding and satisfaction in the long term when compared with EA.4

The takeaway. The LNG-IUD continues to be a very good option to treat AUB in patients who would be candidates for EA, especially in younger patients, who have a high failure rate with EA. Hysterectomy may have greater durability for improving quality of life and bleeding compared with EA.
WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE
As EA is considered, it is important to continue to counsel about the efficacy of the LNG-IUD, as well as its decreased associated morbidity. Additionally, EA is particularly less effective in younger women.

Continue to: Laparoscopy is best approach for isthomocele management, with caveats...

Recommended Reading

Patient-focused precautions, testing help blunt pandemic effects on heme-onc unit
MDedge ObGyn
Should all patients with advanced ovarian cancer receive frontline maintenance therapy?
MDedge ObGyn
FDA approves medication to treat heavy menstrual bleeding related to fibroids
MDedge ObGyn
In your practice, are you planning to have a chaperone present for all intimate examinations?
MDedge ObGyn
ASCCP guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer tests: What’s new?
MDedge ObGyn
How to perform a vulvar biopsy
MDedge ObGyn
Telemedicine: Common hurdles and proper coding for ObGyns
MDedge ObGyn
Pubovaginal sling during urethral diverticulectomy reduces stress incontinence
MDedge ObGyn
Telemedicine: Navigating legal issues
MDedge ObGyn
How effective is elagolix treatment in women with fibroids and HMB?
MDedge ObGyn