Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-24 @ 6:31 PM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-25 @ 4:02 PM
Study NCT ID:
NCT01124357
Status:
COMPLETED
Last Update Posted:
2010-05-17
First Post:
2010-03-18
Is NOT Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
A Study to Compare the Effectiveness of Two Different Outpatient Endometrial Ablation Techniques Used for Heavy Periods
Sponsor:
Birmingham Women's NHS Foundation Trust
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
A Randomised Control Trial To Compare the Effectiveness of Outpatient Endometrial Ablation Techniques (Novasure vs Thermachoice)in the Treatment of Menorhagia
Status:
COMPLETED
Status Verified Date:
2006-05
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
COAT
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.
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 Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
False
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: