4.4 Article

Treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding of endometrial origin: randomized controlled trial of medroxyprogesterone acetate and tranexamic acid

Journal

ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS
Volume 288, Issue 5, Pages 1055-1060

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-013-2839-3

Keywords

Heavy menstrual bleeding of endometrial origin; medroxyprogesterone acetate; Randomized controlled trial; Tranexamic acid

Funding

  1. Tarbiat Modares University research office as part of a Midwifery Master of Science dissertation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed at comparing the efficacy of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and tranexamic acid (TA) for treating heavy menstrual bleeding of endometrial origin (HMB). A randomized controlled trial was carried out in three gynecology clinics in Tehran, Iran. Ninety women with the HMB of endometrial origin were randomized into the study: 44 patients took MPA for 21 days from day 5 and 46 patients took tranexamic acid for 5 days from day 1 of menses for three consecutive menstrual cycles. Blood loss was measured using the pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC); hematological assessments were made before intervention and after treatment. SF-36 and HMB Questionnaire (MQ) were given to assess quality of life. Statistical analysis was performed using t test, Paired t test, chi(2), Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and repeated measure analysis. PBLC mean score, duration of bleeding and Hb values as well as quality of life were significantly improved in both groups (P < 0.05). But there was no significant deference between groups. More drug complication and less satisfaction were reported by MPA group (P = 0.003 and P = 0.002, respectively). Long-term use of MPA is as effective as Tranexamic acid in treating HMB and increasing quality of life. However, bleeding irregularity side effects of MPA might limit its use.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available