A Study to Compare the Effectiveness of Two Different Outpatient Endometrial Ablation Techniques Used for Heavy Periods (COAT)
| Tracking Information | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Received Date ICMJE | March 18, 2010 | ||||
| Last Updated Date | May 14, 2010 | ||||
| Start Date ICMJE | May 2006 | ||||
| Primary Completion Date | October 2007 (final data collection date for primary outcome measure) | ||||
| Current Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE |
Amenorrhoea [ Time Frame: 6 months after the intervention. ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ] The objective of any treatment for HMB is to substantially reduce the amount of menstrual blood loss.Amenorrhoea rates are often chosen as the primary outcome measure in clinical trial of the effectiveness of endometrial ablation in women with HMB. |
||||
| Original Primary Outcome Measures ICMJE | Same as current | ||||
| Change History | Complete list of historical versions of study NCT01124357 on ClinicalTrials.gov Archive Site | ||||
| Current Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE |
Visual analogue scale for assessment of pain [ Time Frame: 24 hours ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ] The main limitation of outpatient interventions is the amount of pain generated. Endometrial ablation has been shown to be feasible and generally well tolerated in conscious patients in small observational series10-11, but direct randomised comparisons between techniques regarding the amount of pain experienced during surgery are lacking |
||||
| Original Secondary Outcome Measures ICMJE | Same as current | ||||
| Current Other Outcome Measures ICMJE | Not Provided | ||||
| Original Other Outcome Measures ICMJE | Not Provided | ||||
| Descriptive Information | |||||
| Brief Title ICMJE | A Study to Compare the Effectiveness of Two Different Outpatient Endometrial Ablation Techniques Used for Heavy Periods | ||||
| Official Title ICMJE | A Randomised Control Trial To Compare the Effectiveness of Outpatient Endometrial Ablation Techniques (Novasure vs Thermachoice)in the Treatment of Menorhagia | ||||
| Brief Summary | STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Does outpatient NovaSureTM endometrial ablation alleviate excessive menstrual bleeding and improve life quality more effectively than outpatient ThermachoiceTM endometrial ablation? |
||||
| Detailed Description | Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) or 'menorrhagia' is a common condition with a major impact on health-related quality of life and health resource utilization in both primary and secondary care. In over 50% of cases no organic pathology is present and the term dysfunctional uterine bleeding (DUB) is used. First line treatment of DUB is medical and where this fails, surgery is indicated using either minimally invasive approaches (endometrial ablation) or major surgery (hysterectomy). Endometrial ablation has been extensively evaluated against the gold standard of hysterectomy and shown to be effective and associated with fewer complications. The technique involves destroying the entire, or a substantial proportion, of the endometrium thereby preventing cyclical endometrial regeneration and suppressing or reducing menstrual blood loss. Recent advances in endoscopic technology have resulted in the development of miniature, automated ablative systems (so called 'second generation devices'), which are easy to use, safe and obviate the need for routine unpleasant and expensive endometrial preparatory drugs10. Moreover, these devices have the potential to be routinely used in the outpatient or 'office' setting without the need for general anaesthesia. This approach is increasingly being advocated as it expands patient choice and potentially increasing safety and cost-effectiveness of treatment. The three most commonly employed and evaluated ablative devices are ThermachoiceTM III thermal balloon ablation (Gynecare Inc, Somerville, NJ, USA), Microwave endometrial ablation (Microsulis plc, Waterlooville, Hampshire, UK) and NovaSureTM impedance-controlled endometrial ablation (Cytyc, Marlborough, MA USA). All appear to have comparable efficacy when employed as an inpatient under general anaesthesia in terms of patient satisfaction and life quality although data on direct head to head comparisons of these procedures when performed in an outpatient environment are scarce. All techniques have been employed without the need for general anaesthesia11,16-19, but only ThermachoiceTM has been reported in an outpatient setting11, without the need for formal theatre facilities or conscious sedation. The Microwave technique necessitates significant dilatation of the cervix that limits its potential for use in an outpatient setting in contrast to ThermachoiceTM and NovaSureTM10. The newer NovasureTM system is more effective than ThermachoiceTM because inpatient studies report a higher rate of amenorrhoea (cessation of menstrual periods - 43% versus 8%). Moreover, NovaSureTM may be a better technique for use in conscious patients in an outpatient setting as it is a shorter procedure (1.5 versus 8 minutes) and associated with less post-operative pain16,19 but it does require a greater degree of potentially painful cervical dilatation10. There is thus a need for a randomised trial to compare the effectiveness and acceptability of ThermachoiceTM and NovaSureTM endometrial ablation in an outpatient setting for the treatment of menorrhagia. |
||||
| Study Type ICMJE | Interventional | ||||
| Study Phase | Not Provided | ||||
| Study Design ICMJE | Allocation: Randomized Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: Single Blind (Subject) Primary Purpose: Treatment |
||||
| Condition ICMJE | Menorrhagia | ||||
| Intervention ICMJE |
|
||||
| Study Arm (s) |
|
||||
| Publications * | Clark TJ, Samuel N, Malick S, Middleton LJ, Daniels J, Gupta JK. Bipolar radiofrequency compared with thermal balloon endometrial ablation in the office: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;117(1):109-18. | ||||
|
* Includes publications given by the data provider as well as publications identified by ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT Number) in Medline. |
|||||
| Recruitment Information | |||||
| Recruitment Status ICMJE | Completed | ||||
| Enrollment ICMJE | 81 | ||||
| Completion Date | October 2008 | ||||
| Primary Completion Date | October 2007 (final data collection date for primary outcome measure) | ||||
| Eligibility Criteria ICMJE | Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
|
||||
| Gender | Female | ||||
| Ages | 25 Years and older | ||||
| Accepts Healthy Volunteers | No | ||||
| Contacts ICMJE | Contact information is only displayed when the study is recruiting subjects | ||||
| Location Countries ICMJE | Not Provided | ||||
| Administrative Information | |||||
| NCT Number ICMJE | NCT01124357 | ||||
| Other Study ID Numbers ICMJE | CLA004. | ||||
| Has Data Monitoring Committee | No | ||||
| Responsible Party | Mr Justin Clark, Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust | ||||
| Study Sponsor ICMJE | Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust | ||||
| Collaborators ICMJE | Hologic, Inc. | ||||
| Investigators ICMJE |
|
||||
| Information Provided By | Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust | ||||
| Verification Date | May 2006 | ||||
|
ICMJE Data element required by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Health Organization ICTRP |
|||||