Dataset Information

Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy with inpatient polypectomy.

Design

Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority study.

Setting

Outpatient hysteroscopy clinics in 31 UK National Health Service hospitals.

Participants

507 women who attended as outpatients for diagnostic hysteroscopy because of abnormal uterine bleeding and were found to have uterine polyps.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned to either outpatient uterine polypectomy under local anaesthetic or inpatient uterine polypectomy under general anaesthesia. Data were collected on women's self reported bleeding symptoms at baseline and at 6, 12, and 24 months. Data were also collected on pain and acceptability of the procedure at the time of polypectomy.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was successful treatment, determined by the women's assessment of bleeding at six months, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 25%. Secondary outcomes included generic (EQ-5D) and disease specific (menorrhagia multi-attribute scale) quality of life, and feasibility and acceptability of the procedure.

Results

73% (166/228) of women in the outpatient group and 80% (168/211) in the inpatient group reported successful treatment at six months (intention to treat relative risk 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.02; per protocol relative risk 0.92, 0.82 to 1.02). Failure to remove polyps was higher (19% v 7%; relative risk 2.5, 1.5 to 4.1) and acceptability of the procedure was lower (83% v 92%; 0.90, 0.84 to 0.97) in the outpatient group Quality of life did not differ significantly between the groups. Four uterine perforations, one of which necessitated bowel resection, all occurred in the inpatient group.

Conclusions

Outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy. Failure to remove a uterine polyp was, however, more likely with outpatient polypectomy and acceptability of the procedure was slightly lower.

Trial registration

International Clinical Trials Registry 65868569.

SUBMITTER: Cooper NA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4370502 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether ultraviolet B phototherapy at home is equally safe and equally effective as ultraviolet B phototherapy in an outpatient setting for patients with psoriasis.DesignPragmatic multicentre single blind randomised clinical trial (PLUTO study).SettingDermatology departments of 14 hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants196 patients with psoriasis who were clinically eligible for narrowband (TL-01) ultraviolet B phototherapy. The first 105 consecutive patients were also followed for one year after therapy.InterventionUltraviolet B phototherapy at home using a TL-01 home phototherapy unit compared with standard narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy in an outpatient setting. Both therapies were done in a setting reflecting routine daily practice in the Netherlands.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome measure was effectiveness as measured by the proportion of patients with a 50% or more reduction of the baseline psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) or self administered psoriasis area and severity index (SAPASI), called the PASI 50 and SAPASI 50 (relevant treatment effect). Another outcome of effectiveness was the percentage reduction in median scores on the PASI as well as SAPASI. Also the proportions of patients reaching the PASI 75 and SAPASI 75 (successful treatment effect), and the PASI 90 and SAPASI 90 (almost complete clearance) were calculated. Other secondary outcomes were quality of life (SF-36, psoriasis disability index), burden of treatment (questionnaire), patients' preferences and satisfaction (questionnaire), and dosimetry and short term side effects (diary).Results82% of the patients treated at home compared with 79% of the patients treated in an outpatient setting reached the SAPASI 50 (difference 2.8%, 95% confidence interval -8.6% to 14.2%), and 70% compared with 73% reached the PASI 50 (-2.3%, -15.7% to 11.1%). For patients treated at home the median SAPASI score decreased 82% (from 6.7 to 1.2) and the median PASI score decreased 74% (from 8.4 to 2.2), compared with 79% (from 7.0 to 1.4) and 70% (from 7.0 to 2.1) for patients treated in an outpatient setting. Treatment effect as defined by the mean decline in PASI and SAPASI scores was significant (P<0.001) and similar across groups (P>0.3). Total cumulative doses of ultraviolet B light were similar (51.5 v 46.1 J/cm(2), difference 5.4, 95% confidence interval -5.2 to 16.0), and the occurrence of short term side effects did not differ. The burden of undergoing ultraviolet B phototherapy was significantly lower for patients treated at home (differences 1.23 to 3.01, all P</=0.001). Quality of life increased equally regardless of treatment, but patients treated at home more often rated their experience with the therapy as "excellent" (42%, 38/90) compared with patients treated in the outpatient department (23%, 20/88; P=0.001).ConclusionUltraviolet B phototherapy administered at home is equally safe and equally effective, both clinically and for quality of life, as ultraviolet B phototherapy administered in an outpatient setting. Furthermore, ultraviolet B phototherapy at home resulted in a lower burden of treatment and led to greater patients' satisfaction. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN83025173 and Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00150930.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Although a great majority of patients with cervical radiculopathy syndrome can successfully be treated non-operatively, a considerable proportion experience persistent symptoms, severe enough to require neurosurgical intervention. During the past decade, cervical spine procedures have increasingly been performed on an outpatient basis and retrospective database analyses have shown this to be feasible and safe. However, there are no randomised controlled studies comparing outpatient care with inpatient care, particularly with emphasis on the patients' perception of symptom relief and their ability to return to normal daily activities and work. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a prospective, randomised, controlled, parallel group non-inferiority trial comparing the traditional hospital surveillance (inpatient, patients staying in the hospital for 1-3 nights after surgery) with outpatient care (discharge on the day of the surgery, usually within 6-8?hours after procedure) in patients who have undergone anterior cervical decompression and fusion procedure. To determine whether early discharge (outpatient care) is non-inferior to inpatient care, we will randomise 104 patients to these two groups and follow them for 6 months using the Neck Disability Index (NDI) as the primary outcome. We expect that early discharge is not significantly worse than the current care in terms of change in NDI. Non-inferiority will be declared if the mean improvement for outpatient care is no worse than the mean improvement for inpatient care, by a margin of 17.3%. We hypothesise that a shorter hospital stay results in more rapid return to normal daily activities, shorter duration of sick leave and decreased secondary costs to healthcare system. Secondary outcomes in our study are arm pain and neck pain using the Numeric Rating Scale, operative success (Odom's criteria), patient's satisfaction to treatment, general quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), Work Ability Score, sickness absence days, return to previous leisure activities and complications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study was approved by the institutional review board of the Helsinki and Uusimaa Hospital District on 6 June 2019 (1540/2019) and duly registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. We will disseminate the findings of this study through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03979443.

Project description:BackgroundUterine leiomyomas and adenomyosis are both common and often associated with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), including the symptom of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Understanding the prevalence of adenomyosis in women with uterine leiomyomas could inform clinicians and patients in a way that may improve therapeutic approaches.ObjectiveTo explore the prevalence of adenomyosis in a group of women who underwent hysterectomy for AUB-L, to determine the prevalence of submucous leiomyomas, and to examine the utility of preoperative ultrasound to detect the presence of adenomyosis.MethodsThe Kaiser Permanente Hysterectomy Database (KPHD) was searched for women aged 18-52 undergoing hysterectomy for leiomyoma-associated chronic AUB (AUB-L) in 2018 and 2019. A target sample of 400 comprised those with at least 3 years in the Health System. Radiologists evaluated preoperative pelvic ultrasound images to determine leiomyoma size and level 2 FIGO type (submucous or other), and the linked electronic medical record abstracted for clinical features, including histopathological evidence of adenomyosis.ResultsOf the 370 subjects that met the study criteria, adenomyosis was identified via histopathology in 170 (45.9%). There was no difference in the adenomyosis prevalence with (47.1%) and without (43.0%) at least one submucous leiomyoma. Subgroup analysis of ultrasound images by an expert radiologist for the presence of adenomyosis demonstrated a positive predictive value of 54.0% and a negative predictive value of 43.4%.ConclusionsAdenomyosis was present in almost half of this AUB-L cohort undergoing hysterectomy and was equally prevalent in those with and without submucous leiomyomas as determined by sonographic evaluation. The imaging findings are in accord with prior investigators and demonstrate that 2-D ultrasound is insensitive to the presence of adenomyosis when the uterus is affected by leiomyomas. Further research is necessary to determine the impact of various adenomyosis phenotypes on the presence and severity of the symptom of HMB.

Project description:BackgroundInduction of labour (IOL) is one of the commonest obstetric interventions, with significant impact on both the individual woman and health service delivery. Outpatient IOL is an attractive option to reduce these impacts. To date there is little data comparing outpatient and inpatient IOL methods, and potential safety concerns (hyperstimulation) if prostaglandins, the standard inpatient IOL medications, are used in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, clinical effectiveness and patient acceptability of outpatient Foley catheter (OPC) vs. inpatient vaginal PGE2 (IP) for induction of labour (IOL) at term.MethodsWomen with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term (N=101) were randomised to outpatient care using Foley catheter (OPC, n=50) or inpatient care using vaginal PGE2 (IP, n=51). OPC group had Foley catheter inserted and were discharged overnight following a reassuring cardiotocograph. IP group received 2 mg/1 mg vaginal PGE2 if nulliparous or 1 mg/1 mg if multiparous. Main outcome measures were inpatient stay (prior to birth, in Birthing Unit, total), mode of birth, induction to delivery interval, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction.ResultsOPC group had shorter hospital stay prior to birth (21.3 vs. 32.4 hrs, p< .001), IP were more likely to achieve vaginal birth within 12 hours of presenting to Birthing Unit (53% vs. 28%, p= .01). Vaginal birth rates (66% OPC Vs. 71% IP), total induction to delivery time (33.5 hrs vs. 31.3 hrs) and total inpatient times (96 hrs OPC Vs. 105 hrs IP) were similar. OPC group felt less pain (significant discomfort 26% Vs 58%, p=.003), and had more sleep (5.8 Vs 3.4 hours, p< .001), during cervical preparation, but were more likely to require oxytocin IOL (88 Vs 59%, p=.001).ConclusionsOPC was feasible and acceptable for IOL of women with an unfavourable cervix at term compared to IP, however did not show a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient stay and was associated with increased oxytocin IOL.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN:12609000420246.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess whether percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED) is non-inferior to conventional open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation.DesignMulticentre randomised controlled trial with non-inferiority design.SettingFour hospitals in the Netherlands.Participants613 patients aged 18-70 years with at least six weeks of radiating leg pain caused by lumbar disc herniation. The trial included a predetermined set of 125 patients receiving PTED who were the learning curve cases performed by surgeons who did not do PTED before the trial.InterventionsPTED (n=179) compared with open microdiscectomy (n=309).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was self-reported leg pain measured by a 0-100 visual analogue scale at 12 months, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 5.0. Secondary outcomes included complications, reoperations, self-reported functional status as measured with the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery. Outcomes were measured until one year after surgery and were longitudinally analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients belonging to the PTED learning curve were omitted from the primary analyses.ResultsAt 12 months, patients who were randomised to PTED had a statistically significantly lower visual analogue scale score for leg pain (median 7.0, interquartile range 1.0-30.0) compared with patients randomised to open microdiscectomy (16.0, 2.0-53.5) (between group difference of 7.1, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 11.3). Blood loss was less, length of hospital admission was shorter, and timing of postoperative mobilisation was earlier in the PTED group than in the open microdiscectomy group. Secondary patient reported outcomes such as the Oswestry Disability Index, visual analogue scale for back pain, health related quality of life, and self-perceived recovery, were similarly in favour of PTED. Within one year, nine (5%) in the PTED group compared with 14 (6%) in the open microdiscectomy group had repeated surgery. Per protocol analysis and sensitivity analyses including the patients of the learning curve resulted in similar outcomes to the primary analysis.ConclusionsPTED was non-inferior to open microdiscectomy in reduction of leg pain. PTED resulted in more favourable results for self-reported leg pain, back pain, functional status, quality of life, and recovery. These differences, however, were small and may not reach clinical relevance. PTED can be considered as an effective alternative to open microdiscectomy in treating sciatica.Trial registrationNCT02602093ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02602093.

Project description:BackgroundIn children with early-onset anorexia nervosa (first symptoms before 13 years old, EO-AN), experts recommend initial outpatient treatment but in-patient treatment (IP) is frequently indicated due to acute medical instability or for those who have not improved with outpatient treatment. This IP can target either a partial weight restauration or a total weight normalization (return to the previous BMI growth trajectory). There are no evidence in the literature on which is the better therapeutic option in EOAN. But as long length of stay induce social isolation, with elevated costs, we wonder if a stepped-care model of daypatient treatment (DP) after short IP stabilisation may be a treatment option as effective as full-time IP to target weight normalization. We designed a two-arm randomised controlled trial testing the non-inferiority of a stepped-care model of DP after short IP stabilisation versus full-time IP.MethodsEighty-eight children aged 8 to 13 years suffering from EOAN with initial severe undernutrition will be randomly allocated to either IP treatment as usual or a stepped care DP model both targeting weight normalization. Assessments will be conducted at inclusion, somatic stabilization, weight normalization, 6 months and 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome will be BMI at 12 months post-randomisation. Secondaries outcomes will included clinical (tanner stage), biological (prealbumin, leptin, total ghrelin and IGF1) and radiological (bone mineralization and maturation) outcomes, eating symptomatology and psychiatric assessments, motivation to change, treatment acceptability and quality of life assessments, cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analyses.DiscussionCOTIDEA will provide rigorous evaluation of treatment alternative to full-time inpatient treatment to allow a reduction of social iatrogenic link to hospital length of stay and associated costs.Trial registrationTrial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04479683).