Premium
An audit of oestradiol levels and implant frequency in women undergoing subcutaneous implant therapy
Author(s) -
Buckler H. M.,
Kalsl P. K.,
Cantrill J. A.,
Anderson D. C.
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
clinical endocrinology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.055
H-Index - 147
eISSN - 1365-2265
pISSN - 0300-0664
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2265.1995.tb02660.x
Subject(s) - medicine , implant , climacteric , surgery , menopause
Summary OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to review our long‐term use of subcutaneous oestradiol (E 2 ) Implant therapy for the treatment of climacteric symptoms In post‐menopausal women. On the grounds that the aim Is to restore premenopausal serum E 2 levels, our declared clinical policy Is not to repeat Implants even in the presence of symptoms If serum E 2 levels are >400pmol/l. Therapy was with 50 mg E 2 implants inserted subcutaneously In the lower abdominal wall. DESIGN All women who had attended the gynaecological/endocrinological clinic who had received subcutaneous E 2 implants for the relief of climacteric symptoms between December 1981 and 1992 were Included. RESULTS Between December 1981 and December 1992, 275 women received a total of 759.50 mg E 2 Implants. The median length of Implant therapy was 34.2 months (range 3.7–109.5 months), and the median number of implants per patient was 4 and ranged from 1 to 13. One hundred and twenty‐nine women had more than four implants and their mean recorded serum E 2 level was 425±187 (mean ±SD) pmol/l; the mean level over the first 24 months of therapy was 408±157pmol/l. This was not different from the mean value of the remaining period of therapy (439±168pmol/l). Following the second Implant there was no significant progressive rise in serum E 2 with time and implant number and the mean E 2 level per patient was no higher in those patients who received implants more frequently. The mean time between the first two implants was 9.7±0.4 months and between subsequent ones was 11.7±0.5 months. After the first two Implants there was no progressive change in this interval with time. CONCLUSION This study shows that effective, safe and sympathetic management of women with oestrogen deficient symptoms may be achieved by use of two criteria to determine re‐treatment; the return of symptoms, and a serum E 2 level no higher than 400pmol/l. Once therapy is established, E 2 Implants may need to be prescribed only on an annual basis. There appears to be no justification for giving E 2 Implants more frequently as this policy achieves satisfactory (physiological) premenopausal E 2 levels and good symptomatic relief without any evidence for accumulation of E 2 or ‘tachyphylaxis’.