Cost-effectiveness of treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding


      Heavy menstrual bleeding affects up to one third of women in the United States, resulting in a reduced quality of life and significant cost to the health care system. Multiple treatment options exist, offering different potential for symptom control at highly variable initial costs, but the relative value of these treatment options is unknown.


      The objective of the study was to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of 4 treatment options for heavy menstrual bleeding: hysterectomy, resectoscopic endometrial ablation, nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation, and the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.

      Study Design

      We formulated a decision tree evaluating private payer costs and quality-adjusted life years over a 5 year time horizon for premenopausal women with heavy menstrual bleeding and no suspected malignancy. For each treatment option, we used probabilities derived from literature review to estimate frequencies of minor complications, major complications, and treatment failure resulting in the need for additional treatments. Treatments were compared in terms of total average costs, quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to understand the range of possible outcomes if model inputs were varied.


      The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system had superior quality-of-life outcomes to hysterectomy with lower costs. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was cost-effective compared with hysterectomy in the majority of scenarios (90%). Both resectoscopic and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation were associated with reduced costs compared with hysterectomy but resulted in a lower average quality of life. According to standard willingness-to-pay thresholds, resectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 44% of scenarios, and nonresectoscopic endometrial ablation was considered cost effective compared with hysterectomy in 53% of scenarios.


      Comparing all trade-offs associated with 4 possible treatments of heavy menstrual bleeding, the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system was superior to both hysterectomy and endometrial ablation in terms of cost and quality of life. Hysterectomy is associated with a superior quality of life and fewer complications than either type of ablation but at a higher cost. For women who are unwilling or unable to choose the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system as a first-course treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding, consideration of cost, procedure-specific complications, and patient preferences can guide the decision between hysterectomy and ablation.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Liu Z.
        • Doan Q.V.
        • Blumenthal P.
        • Dubois R.W.
        A systematic review evaluating health-related quality of life, work impairment, and health-care costs and utilization in abnormal uterine bleeding.
        Value Health. 2007; 10: 183-194
        • Miller J.D.
        • Lenhart G.M.
        • Bonafede M.M.
        • Basinski C.M.
        • Lukes A.S.
        • Troeger K.A.
        Cost effectiveness of endometrial ablation with the NovaSure([R]) system versus other global ablation modalities and hysterectomy for treatment of abnormal uterine bleeding: US commercial and Medicaid payer perspectives.
        Int J Womens Health. 2015; 7: 59-73
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Management of acute abnormal uterine bleeding in nonpregnant reproductive-aged women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 891
        • Osei J.
        • Critchley H.
        Menorrhagia, mechanisms and targeted therapies.
        Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 17: 411-418
        • Bhattacharya S.
        • Middleton L.J.
        • Tsourapas A.
        • et al.
        Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation and Mirena(R) for heavy menstrual bleeding: a systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis.
        Health Technol Assess. 2011; 15 (1-252): iii-xvi
        • Matteson K.A.
        • Abed H.
        • Wheeler 2nd, T.L.
        • et al.
        A systematic review comparing hysterectomy with less-invasive treatments for abnormal uterine bleeding.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012; 19: 13-28
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Endometrial ablation.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109: 1233-1248
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        Long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 84
        • Garside R.
        • Stein K.
        • Wyatt K.
        • Round A.
        • Pitt M.
        A cost-utility analysis of microwave and thermal balloon endometrial ablation techniques for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding.
        BJOG. 2004; 111: 1103-1114
        • Jacoby V.L.
        • Autry A.
        • Jacobson G.
        • Domush R.
        • Nakagawa S.
        • Jacoby A.
        Nationwide use of laparoscopic hysterectomy compared with abdominal and vaginal approaches.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 1041-1048
        • Lethaby A.
        • Penninx J.
        • Hickey M.
        • Garry R.
        • Marjoribanks J.
        Endometrial resection and ablation techniques for heavy menstrual bleeding.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; 8: CD001501
        • Sculpher M.
        A cost-utility analysis of abdominal hysterectomy versus transcervical endometrial resection for the surgical treatment of menorrhagia.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998; 14: 302-319
        • Clegg J.P.
        • Guest J.F.
        • Hurskainen R.
        Cost-utility of levonorgestrel intrauterine system compared with hysterectomy and second generation endometrial ablative techniques in managing patients with menorrhagia in the UK.
        Curr Med Res Opin. 2007; 23: 1637-1648
        • Roberts T.E.
        • Tsourapas A.
        • Middleton L.J.
        • et al.
        Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: cost effectiveness analysis.
        BMJ. 2011; 342: d2202
        • Bonafede M.M.
        • Miller J.D.
        • Lukes A.
        • Meyer N.M.
        • Lenhart G.M.
        Comparison of direct and indirect costs of abnormal uterine bleeding treatment with global endometrial ablation and hysterectomy.
        J Comp Eff Res. 2015; 4: 115-122
      1. Consumer Price Index, August 2016.
        (Available at:)
        Date accessed: October 15, 2016
        • Drummond M.F.
        • Sculpher M.J.
        • Claxton K.
        • Stoddart G.L.
        • Torrance G.W.
        Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes.
        Oxford University Press, New York2015
        • Briggs A.H.
        • Claxton K.
        • Sculpher M.J.
        Decision modelling for health economic evaluation.
        Oxford University Press, New York2006
        • Brown P.M.
        • Farquhar C.M.
        • Lethaby A.
        • Sadler L.C.
        • Johnson N.P.
        Cost-effectiveness analysis of levonorgestrel intrauterine system and thermal balloon ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding.
        BJOG. 2006; 113: 797-803
        • Aarts J.W.
        • Nieboer T.E.
        • Johnson N.
        • et al.
        Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 8: CD003677
        • Loring M.
        • Morris S.N.
        • Isaacson K.B.
        Minimally invasive specialists and rates of laparoscopic hysterectomy.
        JSLS. 2015; 19 (e2014.00221)
        • Siedhoff M.T.
        • Wheeler S.B.
        • Rutstein S.E.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic hysterectomy with morcellation vs abdominal hysterectomy for presumed fibroid tumors in premenopausal women: a decision analysis.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 212: 591.e591-591.e598
        • Dood R.L.
        • Gracia C.R.
        • Sammel M.D.
        • Haynes K.
        • Senapati S.
        • Strom B.L.
        Endometrial cancer after endometrial ablation vs medical management of abnormal uterine bleeding.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21: 744-752
        • Clarke-Pearson D.L.
        • Geller E.J.
        Complications of hysterectomy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 654-673
        • Johnson N.
        • Barlow D.
        • Lethaby A.
        • Tavender E.
        • Curr L.
        • Garry R.
        Methods of hysterectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
        BMJ. 2005; 330: 1478
        • Wingo P.A.
        • Huezo C.M.
        • Rubin G.L.
        • Ory H.W.
        • Peterson H.B.
        The mortality risk associated with hysterectomy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1985; 152: 803-808
        • Marjoribanks J.
        • Lethaby A.
        • Farquhar C.
        Surgery versus medical therapy for heavy menstrual bleeding.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006; : CD003855
        • Meyer W.R.
        • Walsh B.W.
        • Grainger D.A.
        • Peacock L.M.
        • Loffer F.D.
        • Steege J.F.
        Thermal balloon and rollerball ablation to treat menorrhagia: a multicenter comparison.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 92: 98-103