4.3 Article

The ISTH-BAT score and outcomes after endometrial ablation in womenwith heavy menstrual bleeding

期刊

HAEMOPHILIA
卷 29, 期 6, 页码 1573-1579

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/hae.14872

关键词

bleeding disorders; endometrial ablation techniques; heavy menstrual bleeding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to investigate the postsurgical incidence of amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, quality of life, re-intervention after endometrial ablation (EA), and ISTH-BAT score in women with heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). The results showed that an ISTH-BAT score of 6 may be associated with a lower incidence of amenorrhea and a higher rate of dysmenorrhea after EA.
Background: The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding assessment tool (ISTH-BAT), is used during the diagnostic workup of bleeding disorders. Data on ISTH-BAT scores inwomenwith heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) undergoing endometrial ablation (EA) could be essential in optimizing HMBcounselling. Objective: To investigate the postsurgical incidence of amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, quality of life, re-intervention after EA, and ISTH-BAT score. Methods: This study included women who have undergone EA because of HMB. During a follow-up of 2 to 5 years, ISTH-BAT, pictorial blood assessment chart (PBAC), and Short Form-36 survey (SF-36) were administered. At 10 years of follow-up surgical re-interventions were evaluated. Results: Seventy-one women were included of whom 77% (n = 55) had an ISTHBAT score < 6, versus 23% (n = 16) ISTH-BAT score >= 6 (mean age 46.3 versus 42.3, p = 0.004). In the ISTH-BAT =6 group versus < 6 group, amenorrhea occurred in 63% (10/16) versus 82% (45/55) (p = 0.111), dysmenorrhea in 38% (6/16) versus 18% (10/55) (p = 0.111), and surgical re-intervention in 19% (3/16) versus 25% (14/55) (p = 0.582). SF-36 item (Bodily) pain was lower in the ISTH-BAT >= 6 group versus < 6 (median score 58.7 vs. 80.0, p = 0.104). Conclusions: An ISTH-BAT score =6 may be related to a lower amenorrhea incidence and higher dysmenorrhea rate after EA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据