The levonorgestrel intrauterine system (Mirena®) for treatment of idiopathic menorrhagia. Assessment of quality of life and satisfaction

Objectives To evaluate patient satisfaction and improvement in quality of life (QoL) among women with idiopathic menorrhagia treated with the levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS). Study design Prospective-observational study with one-year follow-up in which 225 women were enrolled who had a LNG-IUS inserted for control of idiopathic menorrhagia. Bleeding, tolerability, user satisfaction, and health-related QoL (by means of the SF-36 QoL questionnaire) were assessed. Results There was a statistically significant reduction in the amount of bleeding, an increase of haemoglobin and ferritin levels, and an improved QoL score. A high degree of satisfaction was reported by over 98% of patients. Conclusions The LNG-IUS is an effective and well-tolerated treatment modality in idiopathic menorrhagia. The QoL of women treated with the LNG-IUS is markedly improved, causing high levels of patient satisfaction. This IUS can be regarded as a first-choice therapy in idiopathic menorrhagia.

[1]  F. Lockhat,et al.  The efficacy, side-effects and continuation rates in women with symptomatic endometriosis undergoing treatment with an intra-uterine administered progestogen (levonorgestrel): a 3 year follow-up. , 2005, Human reproduction.

[2]  Aida Ribera,et al.  [The Spanish version of the Short Form 36 Health Survey: a decade of experience and new developments]. , 2005, Gaceta sanitaria.

[3]  Gaietà Permanyer-Miralda,et al.  El Cuestionario de Salud SF-36 español: una década de experiencia y nuevos desarrollos , 2005 .

[4]  A. Lethaby,et al.  Progesterone or progestogen-releasing intrauterine systems for heavy menstrual bleeding. , 2005, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[5]  A. Lethaby,et al.  Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding. , 2016, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[6]  R. Stables Observational research in the evidence based environment: eclipsed by the randomised controlled trial? , 2002, Heart.

[7]  T. Bush Beyond HERS: some (not so) random thoughts on randomized clinical trials. , 2001, International journal of fertility and women's medicine.

[8]  A. Hartz,et al.  A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  T. Bush Some (not so) Random Thoughts on Randomized Clinical Trials: 1. , 1999 .

[10]  J. Puolakka,et al.  Open randomised study of use of levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system as alternative to hysterectomy. , 1998, BMJ.

[11]  P. Vercellini,et al.  Levonorgestrel‐Releasing Intrauterine Device Versus Hysteroscopic Endometrial Resection in the Treatment of Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding , 1997, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  K. Carlson,et al.  The Maine Women's Health Study: I. Outcomes of Hysterectomy , 1994, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  P. Lähteenmäki,et al.  The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. , 1990, Advances in contraceptive delivery systems : CDS.

[14]  G. Rybo,et al.  Levonorgestrel‐releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of menorrhagia , 1990, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[15]  R. Feroze European association of gynaecologists and obstetricians , 1987 .

[16]  W. Dignam The management of dysfunctional uterine bleeding. , 1956, Journal of the National Medical Association.