Patient anxiety and experiences associated with an outpatient "one-stop" "see and treat" hysteroscopy clinic

BACKGROUND: "One-stop" outpatient hysteroscopy clinics have become well established for the investigation and treatment of women with abnormal uterine bleeding. However, the advantages of these clinics may be offset by patient factors such as anxiety, pain, and dissatisfaction. This study aimed to establish patients' views and experiences of outpatient service delivery in the context of a one-stop diagnostic and therapeutic hysteroscopy clinic, to determine the amount of anxiety experienced by these women and compare this with other settings, and to determine any predictors for patient preferences. METHODS: The 20-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory was given to 240 women attending a one-stop hysteroscopy clinic: to 73 consecutive women before their appointment in a general gynecology clinic and to 36 consecutive women attending a chronic pelvic pain clinic. The results were compared with published data for the normal female population, for women awaiting major surgery, and for women awaiting a colposcopy clinic appointment. In addition, a questionnaire designed to ascertain patients' views and experiences was used. Logistic regression analysis was used to delineate the predictive values of diagnostic or therapeutic hysteroscopy, and to determine their effect on the preference of patients to have the procedure performed under general anesthesia in the future. RESULTS: Women attending the hysteroscopy clinic in this study reported significantly higher levels of anxiety than those attending the general gynecology clinic (median, 45 vs 39; p = 0.004), but the levels of anxiety were comparable with those of women attending the chronic pelvic pain clinic (median, 45 vs 46; p = 0.8). As compared with the data from the normal female population (mean, 35.7) and those reported for women awaiting major surgery (mean, 41.2), the levels of anxiety experienced before outpatient hysteroscopy clinic treatment were found to be higher (mean, 45.7). Only women awaiting colposcopy (6-item mean score, 51.1 +/- 13.3) experienced significantly higher anxiety scores than the women awaiting outpatient hysteroscopy (6-item mean score, 47.3 +/- 13.9; p = 0.002). Despite their anxiety, most women are satisfied with the outpatient hysteroscopy "see and treat" service. High levels of anxiety, particularly concerning pain but not operative intervention, were significant predictors of patients desiring a future procedure to be performed under general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient hysteroscopy is associated with significant anxiety, which increases the likelihood of intolerance for the outpatient procedure. However, among those undergoing operative therapeutic procedures, dissatisfaction was not associated with the outpatient setting.

Advancing age and bleeding risk are the strongest barriers to anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation

In clinical practice many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at high thromboembolic risk fail to receive adequate oral anticoagulation (OAC) [1]. The complex management of anticoagulant therapy [frequent international normalised ratio (INR) monitoring because of narrow therapeutic window, interaction with food and alcohol, concomitant medications and comorbities], the overestimation of bleeding risk and the underestimation of stroke risk, may partially explain physicians' reluctance to prescribe anticoagulation. In the current issue of Age and Ageing, Pugh and Mead [2] report a systematic review on physicians' attitudes concerning anticoagulant treatment among AF patients. Through surveys (questionnaire, clinical vignette and interview) on hypothetical case scenarios, they have identified the barriers to effective anticoagulant prescription, as follows: increasing age, bleeding risk or previous bleeding, fall risk, co-morbidities (e.g. chronic alcoholism or cognitive impairment) and lack of compliance. In particular, advanced age has been reported as the most striking reason for with-holding anticoagulation, while risk of falls and previous bleeding are also disproportionate barriers to warfarin prescription.

Randomised trial of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared to usual medical treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding:the ECLIPSE Trial

Objective: Heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) is a common problem, yet evidence is limited to inform therapeutic decisions.We compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system(LNG-IUS) to usual medical treatment in a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care. Methods: We randomly assigned 571 women consulting their primary care providers with menorrhagia to LNG-IUS or to usual medical treatment as clinically appropriate (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen/progestogen or progestogen only). The primary outcome was a patient-reported measure ofimpact of menorrhagia, the validated Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS), assessed over 2 years. Secondary measures included generic quality of life (SF-36), sexual activity and surgical intervention.Results MMAS scores improved from baseline in both the LNG-IUS and usual medical treatment groups by 6 months (mean increases 32.7 points versus 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001for both) and were maintained over 2 years, but improvements were significantly greater with LNG-IUS (mean between-group difference 13.4 points, 95%CI, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001).All domains of MMAS (practical difficulties, social life, family life,work/daily routine, psychological well being and physical health)improved significantly more with LNG-IUS, as were seven of the eight domains of SF-36. More women were still using LNG-IUSthan usual medical treatment at 2 years (64% versus 38%,P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical intervention rates or sexual activity scores. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions Among women presenting to primary care providers with menorrhagia, LNG-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment at reducing the impact of this problem on their quality of life. In practice therefore, conventional treatments, such as tranexamic and mefenamic acid, remain helpful choices in women for whom LNG-IUS is considered unsuitable, or due to individual preference. For other women, LNG-IUS can be confidently recommended as an effective initial medical therapy for menorrhagia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 02/06/02)

Usual medical treatments or levonorgestrel-IUS for women with heavy menstrual bleeding:long-term randomised pragmatic trial in primary care

Background: Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common, chronic problem affecting women and health services. However, long-term evidence on treatment in primary care is lacking. Aim: To assess the effectiveness of commencing the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) or usual medical treatments for women presenting with HMB in general practice. Design and setting: A pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, open-label, long term, randomised controlled trial in 63 primary care practices across the English Midlands. Method: In total, 571 women aged 25–50 years, with HMB were randomised to LNG-IUS or usual medical treatment (tranexamic/mefenamic acid, combined oestrogen–progestogen, or progesterone alone). The primary outcome was the patient reported Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS, measuring effect of HMB on practical difficulties, social life, psychological and physical health, and work and family life; scores from 0 to 100). Secondary outcomes included surgical intervention (endometrial ablation/hysterectomy), general quality of life, sexual activity, and safety. Results: At 5 years post-randomisation, 424 (74%) women provided data. While the difference between LNG-IUS and usual treatment groups was not significant (3.9 points; 95% confidence interval = −0.6 to 8.3; P = 0.09), MMAS scores improved significantly in both groups from baseline (mean increase, 44.9 and 43.4 points, respectively; P<0.001 for both comparisons). Rates of surgical intervention were low in both groups (surgery-free survival was 80% and 77%; hazard ratio 0.90; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.31; P = 0.6). There was no difference in generic quality of life, sexual activity scores, or serious adverse events. Conclusion: Large improvements in symptom relief across both groups show treatment for HMB can be successfully initiated with long-term benefit and with only modest need for surgery.