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

摘要

OBJECTIVE: 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(R) (Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding. DESIGN: 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. SETTING: 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. PARTICIPANTS: Women who were undergoing treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding were included. INTERVENTIONS: Hysterectomy, first- and second-generation EA, and Mirena. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction, recurrence of symptoms, further surgery and costs. RESULTS: 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 pound1440 per additional QALY and pound970 per additional QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite longer hospital stay and time to resumption of normal activities, more women were satisfied after hysterectomy than after EA.