Adam Rosen1, Wilson Ventura Chan1, John Matelski2, Chris Walsh1, Ally Murji3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Biostatistics Research Unit, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Toronto, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: ally.murji@sinaihealth.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the efficacy of medical management of uterine arteriovenous malformation (AVM) and compare efficacy between different classes of medication. In addition, we evaluated for factors associated with treatment success and pregnancy outcomes after medical management. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Thirty-two studies representing 121 premenopausal women with medically-treated uterine AVM were identified via database searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and cited references. INTERVENTION(S): Medical treatment with progestins, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH-a), methotrexate, combined hormonal contraception , uterotonics, danazol, or combination of the above. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcome of treatment success was defined as AVM resolution without subsequent procedural interventions. Secondary outcome was treatment complication (readmission or transfusion). RESULT(S): The overall success rate of medical management was 88% (106/121). After adjusting for clustering effects, success rates for progestin (82.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 70.1%-90.4%), GnRH-a (89.3%; 99% CI, 71.4%-96.5%) and methotrexate (90.0%; 99% CI, 55.8%-98.8%) were significantly different from the null hypothesis of 50% success. The agents with the lowest adjusted proportion of complications were progestins (10.0%; 99% CI, 3.3%-26.8%) and GnRH-a (10.7%; 99% CI, 3.5%-28.4%). No clinical factors were found to predict treatment success. Twenty-six subsequent pregnancies are described, with no reported recurrences of AVM. CONCLUSION(S): Medical management for uterine AVM is a reasonable approach in a well selected patient. These data should be interpreted in the context of significant publication bias.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the efficacy of medical management of uterine arteriovenous malformation (AVM) and compare efficacy between different classes of medication. In addition, we evaluated for factors associated with treatment success and pregnancy outcomes after medical management. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Thirty-two studies representing 121 premenopausal women with medically-treated uterine AVM were identified via database searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and cited references. INTERVENTION(S): Medical treatment with progestins, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH-a), methotrexate, combined hormonal contraception , uterotonics, danazol, or combination of the above. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcome of treatment success was defined as AVM resolution without subsequent procedural interventions. Secondary outcome was treatment complication (readmission or transfusion). RESULT(S): The overall success rate of medical management was 88% (106/121). After adjusting for clustering effects, success rates for progestin (82.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 70.1%-90.4%), GnRH-a (89.3%; 99% CI, 71.4%-96.5%) and methotrexate (90.0%; 99% CI, 55.8%-98.8%) were significantly different from the null hypothesis of 50% success. The agents with the lowest adjusted proportion of complications were progestins (10.0%; 99% CI, 3.3%-26.8%) and GnRH-a (10.7%; 99% CI, 3.5%-28.4%). No clinical factors were found to predict treatment success. Twenty-six subsequent pregnancies are described, with no reported recurrences of AVM. CONCLUSION(S): Medical management for uterine AVM is a reasonable approach in a well selected patient. These data should be interpreted in the context of significant publication bias.
Authors: Francisco Javier Ruiz Labarta; María Pilar Pintado Recarte; Manuel González Leyte; Coral Bravo Arribas; Arturo Álvarez Luque; Yolanda Cuñarro López; Cielo García-Montero; Oscar Fraile-Martinez; Miguel A Ortega; Juan A De León-Luis Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-07-01