Review question
Is uterine artery embolization a safe and effective alternative treatment in women with symptomatic fibroids?
Background
Uterine fibroids (benign tumours) can cause varied symptoms such as heavy bleeding, pain and reduced likelihood of pregnancy. Surgery (hysterectomy or myomectomy) has traditionally been the main treatment option but it carries a risk of complications. Uterine artery embolization (UAE) is a newer treatment option which blocks the blood supply to the womb and thus shrinks the fibroids and reduces their effects. The evidence was current to April 2014.
Study characteristics
There were seven studies included in the review (793 participants). Three of these compared UAE with hysterectomy, two studies compared UAE with myomectomy, and another two with hysterectomy or myomectomy. The studies differed in their outcomes and length of follow-up.
Key results
With regard to patient satisfaction rates, our findings were consistent with satisfaction rates being up to 41% lower or up to 48% higher with UAE compared to surgery within 24 months of having the procedure. Findings on satisfaction rates were also inconclusive at five years of follow-up.
There was very low quality evidence to suggest that fertility outcomes (live birth and pregnancy) may be better after myomectomy than after UAE, but this evidence was based on a small selected subgroup and should be regarded with extreme caution. The UAE group had a shorter hospital stay and a more rapid return to daily activities. With regards to safety, the evidence on major complications was inconclusive and consistent with benefit or harm, or no difference, from either intervention. However, the risk of minor complications was higher after UAE. Moreover, there was a higher likelihood of needing another surgical intervention after UAE, at two year and at five year follow-up. If we assumed that 7% of women will require further surgery within two years of hysterectomy or myomectomy, between 15% and 32% will require further surgery within two years of UAE. Therefore, it appears that while UAE is a safe option with an earlier initial recovery, it does carry a higher risk of minor complications and the need for further surgery later on.
Quality of the evidence:
The quality of the evidence varied from very low for live birth, to moderate for satisfaction ratings and for most safety outcomes. The main limitations in the evidence were serious imprecision, failure to clearly report methods, and lack of blinding for subjective outcomes.
When we compared patient satisfaction rates at up to two years following UAE versus surgery (myomectomy or hysterectomy) our findings are that there is no evidence of a difference between the interventions. Findings at five year follow-up were similarly inconclusive. There was very low quality evidence to suggest that myomectomy may be associated with better fertility outcomes than UAE, but this information was only available from a selected subgroup in one small trial.
We found no clear evidence of a difference between UAE and surgery in the risk of major complications, but UAE was associated with a higher rate of minor complications and an increased likelihood of requiring surgical intervention within two to five years of the initial procedure. If we assume that 7% of women will require further surgery within two years of hysterectomy or myomectomy, between 15% and 32% will require further surgery within two years of UAE. This increase in the surgical re-intervention rate may balance out any initial cost advantage of UAE. Thus although UAE is a safe, minimally invasive alternative to surgery, patient selection and counselling are paramount due to the much higher risk of requiring further surgical intervention.
Uterine fibroids cause heavy prolonged bleeding, pain, pressure symptoms and subfertility. The traditional method of treatment has been surgery as medical therapies have not proven effective. Uterine artery embolization has been reported to be an effective and safe alternative to treat fibroids in women not desiring future fertility. There is a significant body of evidence that is based on case controlled studies and case reports. This is an update of the review previously published in 2012.
To review the benefits and risks of uterine artery embolization (UAE) versus other medical or surgical interventions for symptomatic uterine fibroids.
We searched sources including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries. The search was last conducted in April 2014. We contacted authors of eligible randomised controlled trials to request unpublished data.
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of UAE versus any medical or surgical therapy for symptomatic uterine fibroids. The primary outcomes of the review were patient satisfaction and live birth rate (among women seeking live birth).
Two of the authors (AS and JKG) independently selected studies, assessed quality and extracted data. Evidence quality was assessed using GRADE methods.
Seven RCTs with 793 women were included in this review. Three trials compared UAE with abdominal hysterectomy, two trials compared UAE with myomectomy, and two trials compared UAE with either type of surgery (53 hysterectomies and 62 myomectomies).
With regard to patient satisfaction rates, our findings were consistent with satisfaction rates being up to 41% lower or up to 48% higher with UAE compared to surgery within 24 months of having the procedure (odds ratio (OR) 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.48, 6 trials, 640 women, I2 = 5%, moderate quality evidence). Findings were also inconclusive at five years of follow-up (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.80, 2 trials, 295 women, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence). There was some indication that UAE may be associated with less favourable fertility outcomes than myomectomy, but it was very low quality evidence from a subgroup of a single study and should be regarded with extreme caution (live birth: OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.84; pregnancy: OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.85, 1 study, 66 women).
Similarly, for several safety outcomes our findings showed evidence of a substantially higher risk of adverse events in either arm or of no difference between the groups. This applied to intra-procedural complications (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.97, 4 trials, 452 women, I2 = 40%, low quality evidence), major complications within one year (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.33 to 1.26, 5 trials, 611 women, I2 = 4%, moderate quality evidence) and major complications within five years (OR 0.56; CI 0.27 to 1.18, 2 trials, 268 women). However, the rate of minor complications within one year was higher in the UAE group (OR 1.99; CI 1.41 to 2.81, 6 trials, 735 women, I2 = 0%, moderate quality evidence) and two trials found a higher minor complication rate in the UAE group at up to five years (OR 2.93; CI 1.73 to 4.93, 2 trials, 268 women).
UAE was associated with a higher rate of further surgical interventions (re-interventions within 2 years: OR 3.72; 95% CI 2.28 to 6.04, 6 trials, 732 women, I2 = 45%, moderate quality evidence; within 5 years: OR 5.79; 95% CI 2.65 to 12.65, 2 trials, 289 women, I2 = 65%). If we assumed that 7% of women will require further surgery within two years of hysterectomy or myomectomy, between 15% and 32% will require further surgery within two years of UAE.
The evidence suggested that women in the UAE group were less likely to require a blood transfusion than women receiving surgery (OR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52, 2 trials, 277 women, I2 = 0%). UAE was also associated with a shorter procedural time (two studies), shorter length of hospital stay (seven studies) and faster resumption of usual activities (six studies) in all studies that measured these outcomes; however, most of these data could not be pooled due to heterogeneity between the studies.
The quality of the evidence varied, and was very low for live birth, moderate for satisfaction ratings, and moderate for most safety outcomes. The main limitations in the evidence were serious imprecision due to wide confidence intervals, failure to clearly report methods, and lack of blinding for subjective outcomes.