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

University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) 04/2011; 15(19):iii-xvi, 1-252. DOI: 10.3310/hta15190
Source: PubMed


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.
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.
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.
Women who were undergoing treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were included.
Hysterectomy, first- and second-generation EA, and Mirena.
Satisfaction, recurrence of symptoms, further surgery and costs.
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.
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.
The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Download full-text


Available from: Richard Gray, Aug 12, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To undertake a cost effectiveness analysis comparing first and second generation endometrial ablative techniques, hysterectomy, and the levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treating heavy menstrual bleeding. Model based economic evaluation with data from an individual patient data meta-analysis supplemented with cost and outcome data from published sources taking an NHS (National Health Service) perspective. A state transition (Markov) model was developed, the structure being informed by the reviews of the trials and clinical input. A subgroup analysis, one way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were also carried out. Four hypothetical cohorts of women with heavy menstrual bleeding. One of four alternative strategies: Mirena, first or second generation endometrial ablation techniques, or hysterectomy. Cost effectiveness based on incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Hysterectomy is the preferred strategy for the first intervention for heavy menstrual bleeding. Although hysterectomy is more expensive, it produces more QALYs relative to other remaining strategies and is likely to be considered cost effective. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with Mirena is £1440 (€1633, $2350) per additional QALY. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio for hysterectomy compared with second generation ablation is £970 per additional QALY. In light of the acceptable thresholds used by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, hysterectomy would be considered the preferred strategy for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. The results concur with those of other studies but are highly sensitive to utility values used in the analysis.
    BMJ (online) 04/2011; 342(7804):d2202. DOI:10.1136/bmj.d2202 · 17.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hysterectomy has traditionally been the definitive surgical approach for heavy menstrual bleeding. However, the more modern concept of 'save the uterus' has led to new surgical approaches for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding, based on second-generation endometrial destruction (ablation/resection) techniques, including microwave endometrial ablation, thermal balloon endometrial ablation, radiofrequency electrosurgery, hydrothermal ablation and cryoablation. As pregnancy following endometrial ablation is still possible, we proposed to combine endometrial ablation and sterilization with Essure(®) micro-inserts in women with confirmed menometrorrhagia and the desire, or medical need, for permanent tubal sterilization. Although large diameter resectoscopy provides excellent results in the surgical treatment of myomas, the technique requires dilation of the cervical canal (difficult in nulliparous or menopausal patients), and requires general or epidural anaesthesia and, therefore, must be performed in an operating theatre. A major advance in terms of hysteroscopic procedures is the 'see and treat' approach (i.e. when performing an initial diagnostic hysteroscopy, it is now possible to treat the pathology concurrently). Newer hysteroscopic techniques, often not requiring anaesthesia or analgesia, include OPPIuM (Office Preparation of Partially Intramural Myomas) and use of a mini-resectoscope, allowing office diagnostic-operative hysteroscopic procedures.
    Gynecological Endocrinology 12/2011; 27 Suppl 1(S1):1131-6. DOI:10.3109/09513590.2011.634261 · 1.33 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem in women of reproductive age and can cause irritation, inconvenience, self-consciousness and fear of social embarrassment. Our objective was to review and appraise literature identified from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to evaluate the clinical evidence and provide an update on the risks and benefits of using the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in the treatment of HMB. The LNG-IUS consistently reduces menstrual blood loss (MBL) in women with HMB, including those with underlying uterine pathology or bleeding disorders. The available data suggest that it reduces MBL to a greater extent than other medical therapies, including combined oral contraceptives, oral progestogens (both short- or long-cycle regimens), tranexamic acid and oral mefenamic acid. In addition, the LNG-IUS and endometrial ablation appear to reduce MBL to a similar extent. The adverse effects reported with the LNG-IUS in women with HMB are similar to those typically observed in women using the system for contraception. Uterine perforations were not reported in any of the studies reviewed, but expulsion rates may be higher than in the general population of LNG-IUS users. Overall, the LNG-IUS has a positive effect on most quality-of-life domains, at least comparable to those achieved with hysterectomy or endometrial ablation, and is consistently a cost-effective option across a variety of countries and settings. In conclusion, the LNG-IUS is an effective treatment option for women with HMB, including those with underlying organic pathology or bleeding disorders.
    Drugs 01/2012; 72(2):193-215. DOI:10.2165/11598960-000000000-00000 · 4.34 Impact Factor
Show more