Search

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is often undiagnosed in women and can cause discomfort and distress. A haemostatic cause for excessive bleeding is often not routinely investigated and can lead to hysterectomy at an early age. A prospective cohort study was carried out to determine whether certain patients with unexplained HMB have an underlying platelet function defect (PFD). The Genotyping and Phenotyping of Platelets (GAPP) study recruited 175 women with HMB and 44 unrelated volunteers from 25 Haemophilia Centres across the UK, and a tertiary gynaecology service. Bleeding history was assessed using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Bleeding Assessment Tool (ISTH-BAT). Platelet count, platelet size, haemoglobin and mean corpuscular volume were measured in whole blood using the Sysmex XN-1000 Haematology Analyzer. Platelet function testing using lumiaggregometry and flow cytometry was performed in patients included in this study. A PFD was identified in 47% (82/175) of patients with HMB. Cutaneous bleeding was the most frequent additional bleeding symptom (89% in PFD and 83% with no PFD). Whole blood platelet count was significantly lower (P < 0.0001) between the PFD group and no PFD group. The prevalence of anaemia did not differ between patients and healthy volunteers. Clinical evaluation alone is insufficient to determine presence of an underlying PFD in patients with HMB. Platelet function tests may be considered and clinical guidelines may include them in their algorithms. An appropriate diagnosis and subsequent tailored management of HMB may prevent unnecessary surgery and help manage future haemostatic challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem affecting approximately 1.5 million women in England and Wales with a major impact on their physical, emotional, social and material quality of life. It is the fourth most common reason why women attend gynaecology outpatient clinics and accounts for one-fifth of all gynaecology outpatient referrals. Initial treatment in primary care is medical - either by means of oral or injected medication or the levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (Mirena®). If medical treatment fails then surgical treatment can be offered, either endometrial ablation (EA), which destroys the lining of the cavity of the uterus (endometrium), or hysterectomy, i.e. surgical removal of the uterus. While effective, conventional hysterectomy is invasive and carries a risk of complications due to injury to other pelvic structures. The procedure can be simplified and complications minimised by undertaking a 'supracervical' hysterectomy where the cervix is left in situ and only the body of the uterus removed. Recent advances in endoscopic technologies have facilitated increased use of laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (LASH) which can be performed as a day-case procedure and is relatively easy for the surgeon to learn. HEALTH (Hysterectomy or Endometrial AbLation Trial for Heavy menstrual bleeding) aims to address the question 'Is LASH superior to second generation EA for the treatment of HMB in terms of clinical and cost effectiveness?'Methods/design: Women aged < 50 years, with HMB, in whom medical treatment has failed and who are eligible for EA will be considered for trial entry. We aim to recruit women from approximately 30 active secondary care centres in the UK NHS who carry out both surgical procedures. All women who consent will complete a diary of pain symptoms from day 1 to day 14 after surgery, postal questionnaires at six weeks and six months after surgery and 15 months post randomisation. Healthcare utilisation questions will also be completed at the six-week, six-month and 15-month time-points.Discussion: Measuring the comparative effectiveness of LASH vs EA will provide the robust evidence required to determine whether the new technique should be adopted widely in the NHS.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN49013893 . Registered on 28 January 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding affects 25% of women in the UK, many of whom require surgery to treat it. Hysterectomy is effective but has more complications than endometrial ablation, which is less invasive but ultimately leads to hysterectomy in 20% of women. We compared laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with endometrial ablation in women seeking surgical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding.Methods: In this parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in 31 hospitals in the UK, women younger than 50 years who were referred to a gynaecologist for surgical treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding and who were eligible for endometrial ablation were randomly allocated (1:1) to either laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy or second generation endometrial ablation. Women were randomly assigned by either an interactive voice response telephone system or an internet-based application with a minimisation algorithm based on centre and age group (<40 years vs ≥40 years). Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy involves laparoscopic (keyhole) surgery to remove the upper part of the uterus (the body) containing the endometrium. Endometrial ablation aims to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by destroying the endometrium, which is responsible for heavy periods. The co-primary clinical outcomes were patient satisfaction and condition-specific quality of life, measured with the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality of life scale (MMAS), assessed at 15 months after randomisation. Our analysis was based on the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49013893.Findings: Between May 21, 2014, and March 28, 2017, we enrolled and randomly assigned 660 women (330 in each group). 616 (93%) of 660 women were operated on within the study period, 588 (95%) of whom received the allocated procedure and 28 (5%) of whom had an alternative surgery. At 15 months after randomisation, more women allocated to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were satisfied with their operation compared with those in the endometrial ablation group (270 [97%] of 278 women vs 244 [87%] of 280 women; adjusted percentage difference 9·8, 95% CI 5·1-14·5; adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2·53, 95% CI 1·83-3·48; p<0·0001). Women randomly assigned to laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy were also more likely to have the best possible MMAS score of 100 than women assigned to endometrial ablation (180 [69%] of 262 women vs 146 [54%] of 268 women; adjusted percentage difference 13·3, 95% CI 3·8-22·8; adjusted OR 1·87, 95% CI 1·31-2·67; p=0·00058). 14 (5%) of 309 women in the laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy group and 11 (4%) of 307 women in the endometrial ablation group had at least one serious adverse event (adjusted OR 1·30, 95% CI 0·56-3·02; p=0·54).Interpretation: Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy is superior to endometrial ablation in terms of clinical effectiveness and has a similar proportion of complications, but takes longer to perform and is associated with a longer recovery.Funding: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unscheduled bleeding on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can affect up to 40% of users. In parallel with the increase in HRT prescribing in the UK, there has been an associated increase in referrals to the urgent suspicion of cancer pathway for unscheduled bleeding. On behalf of the British Menopause Society (BMS) an expert review panel was established, including primary and secondary care clinicians with expertise in the management of menopause, with representatives from key related organisations, including the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists, the British Gynaecological Cancer Society, British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy, Royal College of General Practitioners and Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, and service development partners from NHS England and GIRFT (Getting it Right First Time). For each topic, a focused literature review was completed to develop evidence led recommendations, where available, which were ratified by consensus review within the panel and by guideline groups., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.