Lizarazo GSC, Páez MM, de los Ríos PJF, López RCC, Cifuentes PMC, Bareño SJ

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 234-242
PDF size: 215.19 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: This study describes the clinical results for patients suffering from heavy menstrual bleeding which were treated using a Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS).
Methodology: cross-sectional analytic-observational study was used to assess patients with Heavy Menstrual bleeding in a third level clinic at Medellin, Colombia. The study included patients who began treatment between January and December of 2012 and analyzed their clinical results and satisfaction levels with LNG-IUS.
Results: The study assessed 231 patients aged between 30 and 60 with heavy menstrual bleeding. One hundred three of these patients (44.6 %) had not received any treatment before the LNG-IUD insertion. LNG-IUS affected the length of cycles for patients with cycles lasting lower than 24 days (46.8 % of cycles before insertion vs. 9.1% after, P: 0.00, dif in means: 0.377, 95% CI: 0.302 – 0.451) and 32 % of them presented amenorrhea. A decrease in the means of the bleeding days and PBAC scores was also observed following LNG-IUS insertion (PBAC score 1900.7 vs. 243.9 P 0.00, dif in means: 1656.77, 95% CI 1381 - 1932). The most common adverse event was intermenstrual bleeding (20.3%). Most patients said that they were satisfied with the device (82.7%), and only 15.2% were taken to hysterectomy.
Conclusion: Our results show that DIU-LNG reduces blood loss in women with heavy menstrual bleeding and that patients’ tolerance and acceptance for the device are high.

REFERENCES

1. Marjoribanks J, Lethaby A, Farquhar C. Surgery versus medicaltherapy for heavy menstrual bleeding. Cochrane DatabaseSyst Rev 2016. https://doi-org/10.1002/14651858.CD003855.pub3

2. Côté PJ, Cumming DC. Use of health services associatedwith increased menstrual loss in the United States. AmJ Obstet Gynecol 2023; 188 (2): 343-48. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.92

3. Warner PE, Critchley HO, Lumsden MA, Campbell-BrownM, et al. Menorrhagia II: is the 80-mL blood loss criterionuseful in management of complaint of menorrhagia?Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190 (5): 1224-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.11.016.

4. Cheong Y, Cameron IT, Critchley HOD. Abnormal uterinebleeding. Br Med Bull 2017; 123 (1): 103–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldx027

5. Duffy J, Rolph R, Gale C, Hirsch M, et al. Core outcome setsin women’s and newborn health: a systematic review. BJOGAn Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 124 (10): 1481-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14694

6. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Broder MS Fraser S, et al. FIGOclassification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormaluterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductiveage. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2011; 113 (1): 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.11.011

7. Davies J, Kadir RA. Heavy menstrual bleeding: An updateon management. Thromb Res 2017; 151: S70-S77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-3848(17)30072-5

8. Munro MG. Practical aspects of the two FIGO systems formanagement of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2017;40: 3-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.09.011

9. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Fraser IS. The two FIGO systemsfor normal and abnormal uterine bleeding symptoms andclassification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in thereproductive years: 2018 revisions. Int J Gynecol Obstet2018; 143: 393-408. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12666

10. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Fraser IS. The FIGO classificationof causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductiveyears. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (7): 2204-2208.E3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.03.079

11. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Fraser IS. Research and clinicalmanagement for women with abnormal uterine bleedingin the reproductive years: More than PALM-COEIN. BJOGAn Int J Obstet Gynaecol 2017; 124 (2): 185-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14431

12. Solnik MJ, Munro MG. Indications and alternatives tohysterectomy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2014; 57 (1): 14–42.https://doi.org/10.1097/grf.0000000000000010

13. Palmara V, Sturlese E, Villari D, Giacobbe V, et al. Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of abnormaluterine bleeding: a 6- and 12-month morphologicaland clinical follow-up,” Aust. New Zeal. J Obstet Gynaecol2013; 53 (4): 381-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12097

14. Showstack J, Lin F, Learman LA, Hulley S, et al. Randomizedtrial of medical treatment versus hysterectomy forabnormal uterine bleeding: Resource use in the Medicineor Surgery (Ms) trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194 (2):332–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2005.08.014

15. Mansukhani N, Lin F, Learman LA, Hulley S, et al. Arewomen satisfied when using levonorgestrel-releasingintrauterine system for treatment of abnormal uterinebleeding? J Midlife Health 2013; 4 (1): 31. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-7800.109633

16. Dueholm M. Levonorgestrel-IUD should be offered beforehysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding without uterinestructural abnormalities: there are no more excuses!.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009; 88 (12):1302-304. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016340903322776

17. Wheeler TL, Murphy M, Rogers RG, Bradley L, et al.Clinical practice guideline for abnormal uterine bleeding:hysterectomy versus alternative therapy. J Minim InvasiveGynecol 2012; 19 (1): 81-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.10.001

18. IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows,Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

19. Whitaker L, Critchley HOD. Abnormal uterine bleeding.Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 34: 54-65. 2016.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2015.11.012

20. Côté I, Jacobs P, Cumming D. Work loss associated withincreased menstrual loss in the United States. Obstetrics& Gynecology 2002; 100: 683-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(02)02094-x

21. Liu Z, Doan QV, Blumenthal P, Dubois RW. A systematicreview evaluating health-related quality of life, work impairment,and health-care costs and utilization in abnormaluterine bleeding. Value Heal 2007; 10 (3): 183-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00168.x

22. Reid PC, Coker A, Coltart R. Assessment of menstrualblood loss using a pictorial chart: a validation study.BJOG 2000; 107 (3): 320-22. https://org/10.1186/s12905-020-0887-y

23. Cim N, Soysal S, Sayan S, Yildizhan B, et al. Two years followupof patients with abnormal uterine bleeding after insertionof the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.Gynecol Obstet Invest 2018; 83 (6): 569-75. https://doi.org/10.1159/000480012

24. Heavy menstrual bleeding: assessment and management |Guidance | NICE. Published date: March 2018 Last updated:November 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng88

25. Marnach ML, Laughlin-Tommaso SK. Evaluation andmanagement of abnormal uterine bleeding. Mayo ClinProc 2019; 94 (2): 326-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.12.012

26. Dhamangaonkar PC, Anuradha K Saxena A. Levonorgestrelintrauterine system (Mirena): An emerging tool for conservativetreatment of abnormal uterine bleeding. J MidlifeHealth 2015; 6 (1): 26-30. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-7800.153615

27. Bitzer J, Heikinheimo O, Nelson AL, Calaf-Alsina J, etal. Medical management of heavy menstrual bleeding.Obstet Gynecol Surv 2015; 70 (2): 115-30. https://doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0000000000000155

28. Chen B, Ren DP, Li JX, Li CD. Comparison of vaginal andabdominal hysterectomy: A prospective non-randomizedtrial. Pak J Med Sci 2014; 3 (4): 875-79. https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.304.4436

29. Matteson KA, Abed H, Wheeler TL, Schaffer JI, et al. A systematicreview comparing hysterectomy with less-invasivetreatments for abnormal uterine bleeding. J Minim InvasiveGynecol 2012; 19 (1): 13-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2011.08.005.