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

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 w...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Cooper, Natalie A.M., Clark, T. Justin, Middleton, Lee, Diwakar, Lavanya, Smith, Paul, Denny, Elaine, Roberts, Tracy, Stobert, Lynda, Jowett, Susan, Daniels, Jane, Thornton, Jim
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: British Medical Association 2015
Online Access:https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/31864/
_version_ 1848794287215476736
author Cooper, Natalie A.M.
Clark, T. Justin
Middleton, Lee
Diwakar, Lavanya
Smith, Paul
Denny, Elaine
Roberts, Tracy
Stobert, Lynda
Jowett, Susan
Daniels, Jane
Thornton, Jim
author_facet Cooper, Natalie A.M.
Clark, T. Justin
Middleton, Lee
Diwakar, Lavanya
Smith, Paul
Denny, Elaine
Roberts, Tracy
Stobert, Lynda
Jowett, Susan
Daniels, Jane
Thornton, Jim
author_sort Cooper, Natalie A.M.
building Nottingham Research Data Repository
collection Online Access
description 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.
first_indexed 2025-11-14T19:13:47Z
format Article
id nottingham-31864
institution University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus
institution_category Local University
language English
last_indexed 2025-11-14T19:13:47Z
publishDate 2015
publisher British Medical Association
recordtype eprints
repository_type Digital Repository
spelling nottingham-318642020-05-08T12:30:36Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/31864/ Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study. Cooper, Natalie A.M. Clark, T. Justin Middleton, Lee Diwakar, Lavanya Smith, Paul Denny, Elaine Roberts, Tracy Stobert, Lynda Jowett, Susan Daniels, Jane Thornton, Jim 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. British Medical Association 2015-03-23 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en cc_by_nc https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/31864/1/bmj.h1398.pdf Cooper, Natalie A.M., Clark, T. Justin, Middleton, Lee, Diwakar, Lavanya, Smith, Paul, Denny, Elaine, Roberts, Tracy, Stobert, Lynda, Jowett, Susan, Daniels, Jane and Thornton, Jim (2015) Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 350 . h1398/1-h1398/9. ISSN 0959-8138 http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h1398
spellingShingle Cooper, Natalie A.M.
Clark, T. Justin
Middleton, Lee
Diwakar, Lavanya
Smith, Paul
Denny, Elaine
Roberts, Tracy
Stobert, Lynda
Jowett, Susan
Daniels, Jane
Thornton, Jim
Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study.
title Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study.
title_full Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study.
title_fullStr Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study.
title_full_unstemmed Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study.
title_short Outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study.
title_sort outpatient versus inpatient uterine polyp treatment for abnormal uterine bleeding: randomised controlled non-inferiority study.
url https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/31864/
https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/31864/