title: A randomised controlled trial of microwave endometrial ablation without endometrial preparation in the outpatient setting: patient acceptability, treatment outcome and costs.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare outpatient microwave endometrial ablation (MEA) in the postmenstrual phase to standard MEA treatment after drug preparation in a day case theatre environment.
  
  
  METHODS
  A randomised controlled trial.
  
  
  METHODS
  A large United Kingdom teaching hospital.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two hundred and ten women complaining of excessive menstrual loss.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two hundred and ten women with excessive menstrual loss were randomised. Ninety-seven women were treated as outpatients in the immediate post-menstrual phase and 100 were treated in an operating theatre after hormonal preparation. All procedures were commenced under local anaesthesia with or without conscious sedation. Analysis was by modified intention to treat.
  
  
  METHODS
  Primary outcome measures were satisfaction with treatment (measured at one year) and acceptability of treatment (measured at two weeks). Secondary outcome measures were menstrual outcome and financial cost.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Significantly more women found treatment post-menses acceptable; 86 (89.5%) versus 76 (76.0%) [difference in proportions 13.6%, 95% CI (3.0%, 23.9%)]. Similar numbers in each arm were totally or generally satisfied with the treatment, 86 (92.5%) versus 84 (88.4%) [difference in proportions 4.1%, 95% CI (-4.7%, 12.9%)] while amenorrhoea rates at one year were comparable, 52 (55.9%) versus 60 (61.9%). [difference in proportions -5.9%, 95% CI (-19.8%, 7.6%)]. The mean health service costs were 124 pounds (95% CI 86-194 pounds) lower for the patients in the post-menses group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  MEA performed under local anaesthesia (with or without conscious sedation) in the post-menstrual phase achieves high levels of satisfaction is very acceptable to patients and results in significantly reduced health service costs. Importantly menstrual outcomes are not affected by omission of drug preparation. There is now good evidence to support the use of MEA, without drug endometrial preparation, in the outpatient setting.
authors.affiliation: Department of Gynaecology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
authors.forename: Stuart A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Jack
authors.forename: Kevin G
authors.initials: KG
authors.lastname: Cooper
authors.forename: Janelle
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Seymour
authors.forename: Wendy
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Graham
authors.forename: Ann
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Fitzmaurice
authors.forename: Juan
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Perez
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000553:Ambulatory Care / Q000191:economics; D017115:Catheter Ablation / Q000191:economics / Q000379:methods*; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D003613:Danazol / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics; D004717:Endometrium / Q000601:surgery*; D004965:Estrogen Antagonists / Q000008:administration & dosage / Q000191:economics; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008595:Menorrhagia / Q000191:economics / Q000601:surgery*; D008598:Menstruation; D008872:Microwaves / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011292:Premedication / Q000191:economics; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D004965:Estrogen Antagonists; D003613:Danazol