menorrhagia

Bleeding Disorders Overlooked in Women With Heavy Periods

14685 views

Four years ago, when the heavy period bleeding which I’d had since adolescence suddenly became much worse, I never would have predicted that the cause of the bleeding would not be correctly diagnosed and treated until after I’d had an unnecessary surgery, a preventable major complication of another surgery, months of severe anemia and more. And yet many women may be at risk for similar problems without realizing it.

Heavy period bleeding (medically called menorrhagia) is a very common problem in women of reproductive age, affecting up to 30 percent of women. This type of bleeding can be very debilitating and difficult to deal with, as well as posing a diagnostic challenge for doctors to identify the underlying cause.

There are many possible causes of menorrhagia, including hormonal imbalances and dysfunction of the ovaries, fibroids, uterine polyps, adenomyosis, intrauterine devices (IUDs), and in rare cases, cancers of the reproductive system. One cause that is not often considered is a bleeding disorder. Up to 20 percent of women with menorrhagia may have von Willebrand’s disease, which is the most common of the so-called “mild” bleeding disorders (which include any bleeding disorder not classified as a severe hemophilia). The number of women with menorrhagia who have an undiagnosed bleeding disorder is even higher when platelet function disorders, another type of “mild” bleeding disorder, are included.

Studies have shown that gynecologists are not likely to consider a bleeding disorder as a possible cause when investigating menorrhagia, and are not likely to refer women with heavy period bleeding to a hematologist for further investigation, even when gynecological causes are ruled out. One study found that only four percent of physicians surveyed would consider von Willebrand’s disease as a possible diagnosis in women with menorrhagia, and only 3 percent of physicians would refer patients to a specialist.

Studies have also shown that women with undiagnosed bleeding disorders are more likely to be subjected to unnecessary surgical procedures, including hysterectomy, as a “fix” for the bleeding that doesn’t address the underlying problem. Menorrhagia is the major reason for approximately 300,000 hysterectomies per year in the U.S. Given the prevalence of undiagnosed bleeding disorders in this population, 60,000 or more hysterectomies per year could be performed in women whose menorrhagia could be addressed with treatment for their bleeding disorder instead of a major surgery. Women with von Willebrand’s disease are more likely to undergo a hysterectomy (26 percent of women with von Willebrand’s disease, compared to 9 percent of women in the control group) and to have the hysterectomy at a younger age.

In addition, undiagnosed bleeding disorders have a serious effect on women’s quality of life, and put women at risk for medical complications. Although women who have not experienced it, or men, who of course cannot experience it, may dismiss heavy period bleeding as simply a nuisance, it is far more than that. It can cause serious problems such as anemia, complications from childbirth and surgical procedures, lost work or school time, lifestyle issues, psychological disruptions, and have major effects on quality of life. The health-related quality of life for women with menorrhagia and a bleeding disorder was studied and found to be similar to that of HIV-positive men with severe hemophilia, underscoring the difficult symptoms and lifestyle issues that can result from these problems.

My own medical history reads like a clinical case study designed to educate doctors about the possible pitfalls of undiagnosed bleeding disorders, and judging by the numbers, there are many more women out there going through the same thing. After my son was born, the menorrhagia I’d had since I was a teenager worsened significantly. I had gynecological causes ruled out—no polyps, fibroids, or cancer. I already had been diagnosed with endometriosis, but that was not thought to be the cause of the bleeding. My gynecologist deemed the cause to be “hormonal” and spent two years trying to fix it with birth control pills, which didn’t work. At some point during those two years I asked for a referral to a hematologist, which I was told I didn’t need after a few preliminary blood clotting tests came back normal. I had an endometrial ablation, which also didn’t work, and caused my pelvic pain to worsen so severely that my first period after the ablation landed me in the ER (increased pelvic pain is a known risk with endometrial ablation).

I had enough of a history the first time I asked to warrant a referral. My history at that time included bleeding complications with my first laparoscopy for endometriosis, history of heavy periods with gynecological causes ruled out, easy bruising and bleeding gums. However, it took four more years of suffering with the symptoms of anemia, low ferritin, and heavy periods, one unnecessary surgical procedure (the ablation), and a preventable surgical complication that required a subsequent surgery (I had a major internal hemorrhage after excision surgery for endometriosis and removal of my left ovary and tube) and three more requests for hematology referrals, before I was finally referred to a hematologist and ultimately diagnosed with a bleeding disorder. And some studies show that the diagnostic delay from onset of bleeding symptoms can be up to 16 years! It is time for this to change. Gynecologists need to consider the possibility of bleeding disorders, and work with hematologists when appropriate, when trying to diagnose the underlying causes of menorrhagia.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

Conquering the Uterus – Trends in Hysterectomy

6990 views

Every 10 minutes, 12 American women lose their reproductive organs, every day of every year. Hysterectomy is second only to cesarean in common surgeries. Approximately 660 women die each year in the United States from complications related to hysterectomy. Thousands more suffer long term side effects associated with oophorectomy – removal of the ovaries. The most common reasons for hysterectomy include:  uterine fibroids or rather the menorrhagia, heavy bleeding associated with the fibroids and endometriosis, an incredibly painful condition where uterine tissue grows outside the uterus. Both conditions are hormonally modulated, plague millions of women and take years to develop.

One would think that with such extended period of disease progression, 5-10 years, researchers and clinicians would have ample opportunity to develop innovative treatment protocols, long before the surgical removal of the uterus was necessitated. One would be wrong. Despite the cost of long term care leading to, and as a result of the hysterectomy; despite the outcry from the hundreds of patient associations, some with high profile members; despite the billions of dollars spent annually on performing what should be last resort surgeries, there has been no innovation in diagnostic tools for these conditions and no new therapeutics for women’s reproductive health developed in over 50 years, unless you call the re-purposing of old meds innovation.

Instead, innovation in women’s healthcare, much like American healthcare in general only magnified exponentially, comes at the end of the disease progression – when no other choice but surgery exists. Let’s build a cool robotic tool to remove even more uteri. Sure it will cost significantly more and have a higher complication rate, but the technology is so impressive that does not matter. Forget about developing early diagnostics and less invasive, more effective therapeutics, just take it all out and look cool doing so. Who would not want to perform surgery remotely with a million dollar piece of medical technology? Women don’t need their uteri anyway – a win win for all involved.

Robotic Assisted Hysterectomy

The robotic, joystick controlled, remote surgical tool is an impressive piece of engineering. With a price tag of over a million dollars per, it provides the cutting edge stature that all top-notch hospitals strive for. An added bonus, it makes gynecology, the long derided medical profession, the cool kid on the block. But does it work?

Well, not really. Sure it removes a woman’s uterus more quickly and with less scarring; a single ½ inch belly button scare versus two or three ½ inch abdominal scars, but it costs more and doesn’t reduce complications – may even increase them a bit. Compared to the minimally invasive laparoscopic hysterectomy, the robotic assisted hysterectomy costs $2000 more per procedure. As of 2010, about a quarter of all hysterectomies were performed robotically. That’s about $300 million dollars per year more to perform a robotic hysterectomy with no added gain health.  When combined with the costs multiple hospital stays, ineffective therapeutics and possible other surgeries that often led up to the hysterectomy, it is clear why women’s healthcare is so expensive.

Perhaps we could use our health dollars a little more wisely. Maybe we should spend some of those many billions of dollars or even a fraction of the $300 million spent annually on robot surgery, on prevention, early diagnostics or more effective therapeutics.

Update

Since this article was originally published in 2013, additional reports of complication rates for robotic surgery have been published. In a study of 298 patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy published in 2015, the complication rate was 18%. In 2017, a study of complication rates of a single surgeon using the robot, was 5.5% suggesting that some surgeons are better with this tool than others. In comparison, a study looking at 4505 hysterectomies performed by the same team between 1990 and 2006 (3190 were performed by laparoscopy, 906 by the vaginal route and 409 by laparotomy) saw the complication rates below 1%, significantly lower than that of the robotic surgeries, but again demonstrating that the skill of the surgical team is paramount.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

Photo by Sander Sammy on Unsplash.

This article was published originally on March 18, 2013.

Endometrial Ablation – Hysterectomy Alternative or Trap?

57421 views

Endometrial ablation seems to be the latest “bag of tricks” in the treatment of women’s gynecological problems. It is an increasingly common procedure used to treat heavy menstrual bleeding. The procedure is premised on the notion that if the endometrial lining is destroyed – ablated – bleeding can no longer occur. Problem solved. But is it? Does endometrial ablation work? Does it resolve the heavy menstrual bleeding and prevent the “need” for a hysterectomy as it is marketed, or does endometrial ablation cause more problems than it solves? The research is sketchy, but here is what I found.

Short-term Complications Associated with Endometrial Ablation

For any surgical procedure there are risks associated with the procedure itself. Here are the short-term complications for endometrial ablation reported in PubMed: pelvic inflammatory disease, endometritis, first-degree skin burns, hematometra, vaginitis and/or cystitis. A search of the FDA MAUDE database included complications of thermal bowel injury (one resulting in death), uterine perforation, emergent laparotomy, intensive care unit admissions, necrotizing fasciitis that resulted in vulvectomy, ureterocutaneous ostomy, and bilateral below-the-knee amputations. Additional postoperative complications include:

  1. Pregnancy after endometrial ablation
  2. Pain-related obstructed menses (hematometra, postablation tubal sterilization syndrome)
  3. Failure to control menses (repeat ablation, hysterectomy)
  4. Risk from preexisting conditions (endometrial neoplasia, cesarean section)
  5. Infection

Long Term Complications of Endometrial Ablation

Endometrial ablation to block menstruation. In order to understand the long-term risks of endometrial ablation, one must understand the hormonal interaction between the uterus and ovaries. The endometrial (uterine) lining builds and sheds in response to the hormonal actions of the ovaries. Ablation scars the lining impeding its ability to shed. But ovaries continue to send the hormonal signals necessary for menstruation and the uterus attempts to function normally by becoming engorged with blood. The problem is, the blood has nowhere to go. It is trapped behind the scar tissue caused by the ablation. This causes all sorts of problems.

Retention of blood in the uterine cavity is called hematometra. If the blood backs up into the fallopian tubes it’s called hematosalpinx.  Hematometra and hematosalpinx can cause acute and chronic pelvic pain. Some data suggest that about 10% of the women who have had endometrial ablation suffer from hematometra. The pelvic pain in women who’ve undergone both tubal sterilization and ablation has been coined postablation-tubal sterilization syndrome.

“Any bleeding from persistent or regenerating endometrium behind the scar may be obstructed and cause problems such as central hematometra, cornual hematometra, postablation tubal sterilization syndrome, retrograde menstruation, and potential delay in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer. The incidence of these complications is probably understated because most radiologists and pathologists have not been educated about the findings to make the appropriate diagnosis of cornual hematometra and postablation tubal sterilization syndrome.”  Long term complications of endometrial ablation

So although ablation can have the desired effect of reduced or even absent bleeding, it can be a double-edged sword. This relief from heavy bleeding may, in the long-term, be overshadowed by chronic, debilitating pain caused by the ongoing, monthly attempts by the uterus to build and shed the lining.

Ablation leads to hysterectomy in younger women. The younger a woman is at the time of ablation, the greater the risk of long-term problems that can then lead to hysterectomy. A 2008 study in Obstetrics & Gynecology found that 40% of women who underwent endometrial ablation before the age of 40 years, required a hysterectomy within 8 years. Similarly, 31% of ablations resulted in hysterectomy for 40-44.9 year old women, ~20% for 45-49.9 year old women and 12% of women over the age of 50 years required a hysterectomy after the endometrial ablation procedure.

Another study, reported a similar link between endometrial ablation and hystectomy. “On the basis of our findings one third of women undergoing rollerball endometrial ablation for menorrhagia (heavy menstrual bleeding) can expect to have a hysterectomy within 5 years. If the linear relationship noted during the first 5 years is extrapolated, theoretically, all women may need hysterectomy by 13 years.”

Post ablation tubal sterilization syndrome. A 1996 study of 300 women who underwent ablation found an array of pathological changes in the uterus including: hematosalpinx, endometriosis, chronic inflammation of the fallopian tubes, and acute and chronic myometritis. Eight percent of the women developed intense cyclic pain that necessitated a hysterectomy within 5-40 months post endometrial ablation.

Informed Consent That Isn’t

Recently, Hormones Matter has begun to explore the legalities of the medical informed consent, here and here. With all the adverse effects associated with endometrial ablation, especially the need for hysterectomy later, one must question whether women are informed about those risks. As I have found when investigating this topic, there are few long term studies on endometrial ablation. Many of the articles cited for this post come from paywalled journals that are not readily available to either the patients or the physicians – the costs are prohibitive for both. So it is not clear whether the physicians performing these procedures are aware of the long-term risks associated with ablation. And as one physician suggests, neither the pathologists nor radiologists responsible for diagnosing post ablation pathology are trained to recognize these complications. Without data or access to data and without training, one wonders whether it is even possible to have informed consent for a procedure like ablation.

You know the sayings “never mess with mother nature” and “you never know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone?” We need to heed those words at least when it comes to treatments that can’t be reversed or stopped! At the very least, we have to become thoroughly educated about the risks and benefits of any given medical procedure.

This post was published originally on Hormones Matter in May 2013.

 

When Should Teens Go to the Gynecologist?

4791 views

When should girls start going to the gynecologist? The general consensus from the medical community and public health education is that a girl need not see a gynecologist until she becomes sexually active..I disagree.

Reproductive Care Should Begin with the First Period

Consider this; the average age of menarche in the United States is a little above 12 years of age. The average age a woman loses her virginity in the United States is 17. Based on what is taught in health class, that leaves 5 years of no reproductive care for the average American female. Although the average teenager may not need annual visits to the gynecologist, reproductive care should not be ignored. This means pediatricians must be better informed about gynecological care.

Just because a young girl is not sexually active does not mean her reproductive system does not exist. Amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, endometriosis, polycystic ovarian syndrome and menorrhagia are all terms (or concepts) that young girls of reproductive age should be familiar with; and yet a majority of girls of reproductive age would not be able to identify any of these terms.

Abnormal Periods are a Sign of Trouble

Young girls should be taught that abnormal periods, painful periods (dysmenorrhea), an absence of periods (amenorrhea), or extremely heavy periods (menorrhagia) are not normal and should be evaluated by a doctor. In many cases, finding the causes of abnormalities in menstruation early on, could prevent further complications down the road.

Most women who have uterine or menstrual abnormalities do not get a diagnosis or proper treatment until they discover they cannot conceive. That is because by the time these women go to the gynecologist for the first time they have been lead to believe that abnormal is their normal.

My Story

When I was twelve I was getting my period every other week and I was told that was normal and that every girls’ period takes some time to regulate – which is true.  However, it wasn’t true for me. I had endometriosis and uterine didelphys (two uteri) which required surgery, but because I was young, it was two and a half years before my painful periods were taken seriously. This is an all-too-common experience. Many women report suffering for decades.

In the case where a young girl’s menstrual problems are impacting her daily life – isn’t it better to be safe, rather than sorry? Read my full health story here.

The Need for Pediatric Gynecologists

Pediatricians and family doctors alike need to sit down with their female patients and have a detailed discussion about menstruation. No one should assume that health education in secondary schools is adequate to teach a young girl to stand up for her own reproductive care. The stigma of being too young (or not yet sexually active) to go see the gynecologist should be disregarded. Regardless of age, if any other part of the body wasn’t working one would go to the doctor to get it looked at; the same should go for the reproductive system.

How old were you at your first gynecologist appointment? When did your menstrual problems begin?