4.6 Article

Uterine artery embolization for treatment of leiomyomata - Long-term outcomes from the FIBROID registry

Journal

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
Volume 111, Issue 1, Pages 22-33

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000296526.71749.c9

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term clinical outcomes of uterine artery embolization across a wide variety of practice settings in a large patient cohort. METHODS: The Fibroid Registry for Outcomes Data (FIBROID) for Uterine Embolization was a 3-year, singlearm, prospective, multi-center longitudinal study of the short- and long-term outcomes of uterine artery embolization for leiomyomata. Two thousand one hundred twelve patients with symptomatic leiomyomata were eligible for long-term follow-up at 27 sites representing a geographically diverse set of practices, including academic centers, community hospitals, and closed-panel health maintenance organizations. At 36 months after treatment, 1,916 patients remained in the study, and of these, 1,278 patients completed the survey. The primary measures of outcome were the symptom and health-related quality-of -life scores from the Uterine Fibroid Symptom and Quality of Life questionnaire. RESULTS: Mean symptom scores improved 41.41 points (P < .001), and the quality of life scores improved 41.47 points (P < .001), both moving into the normal range for this questionnaire. The improvements were independent of practice setting. During the 3 years of the study, Kaplan-Meier estimates of hysterectomy, myomectomy, or repeat uterine artery embolization were 9.79%, 2.82%, and 1.83% of the patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Uterine artery embolization results in a durable improvement in quality of life. These results are achievable when the procedure is performed in any experienced community or academic interventional radiology practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available