Skip to main content
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 2001 Mar 24;322(7288):732.

Menorrhagia

Underlying bleeding disorders need to be ruled out

Kathryn Robinson 1, Paul Giangrande 1
PMCID: PMC1119913  PMID: 11264220

Editor—We read with interest the first in your series of articles on common problems in primary care, on the topic of management of menorrhagia.1 We would, however, like to draw attention to one important aspect that was overlooked, which we believe deserves wider recognition.

Menorrhagia may be a manifestation of an underlying inherited disorder of coagulation. Such disorders are by no means rare. A recent British study found that as many of 17% of women with menorrhagia and no underlying pelvic disease had an inherited bleeding disorder, the most common of which was von Willebrand's disorder.2 An earlier study from Sweden also found the prevalence of von Willebrand's disorder among women with menorrhagia to be 20%.3 The history in the initial consultation should therefore include specific questions to elicit features suggestive of an underlying bleeding disorder. These include a history of menorrhagia since menarche, recurrent epistaxis, bleeding after dental extraction, operations, or parturition, and a family history. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the United Kingdom has recommended screening of selected women for bleeding disorders in their guidelines on the management of menorrhagia in secondary care.4 The identification of inherited bleeding disorders is important not only because these women may have invasive procedures but also for future pregnancies and family members. Women with inherited bleeding disorders may, however, not complain of menorrhagia (which is often socially limiting) because their bleeding is similar to what other family members have experienced. The primary care physician is in the unique position of identifying these patients when they attend for other problems. Referral of patients with suggestive histories to a haematologist should be considered.

References

  • 1.Hope S. 10-minute consultation. Menorrhagia. BMJ. 2000;321:935. doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7266.935. . (14 October.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kadir R, Economides D, Sabin C, Owens D, Lee C. Frequency of inherited bleeding disorders in women with menorrhagia. Lancet. 1998;351:485–489. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08248-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Edlund M, Blomback M, von Schoultz B, Andersson O. On the value of menorrhagia as a predictor for coagulation disorders. Am J Hematol. 1996;53:234–238. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-8652(199612)53:4<234::AID-AJH4>3.0.CO;2-Z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Management of menorrhagia in secondary care—evidence based guidelines. London: RCOG Press; 1999. [Google Scholar]
BMJ. 2001 Mar 24;322(7288):732.

Sexual history needs to be taken

Jan Clarke 1

Editor—Hope in her article offers an interesting and logical approach to a common problem.1-1 The need for brevity in 10 minutes should, however, not omit a crucial set of questions—namely, an abbreviated sexual history. Assuming a woman is grumpy because of the blood loss may miss a marital separation and consequent risk of introducing a sexually transmitted infection into the equation. Chlamydial endometritis can be associated with severe menstrual irregularity and will not be diagnosed unless thought of and tested for. This is particularly important to do if, as suggested in the latter part of the article, an intrauterine device is to be offered. Just because the patient is older than 30 and married with children should not mean we miss out on some crucial questions—and antibiotics may sort out the menorrhagia from chlamydia without the need for hormones.

References

BMJ. 2001 Mar 24;322(7288):732.

Ten minutes may not be enough

Melanie Wynne-Jones 1

Editor—Hope has produced an excellent resume of the territory to be covered when dealing with a patient with menorrhagia,2-1 but I am full of admiration for her if she can really achieve all this in 10 minutes (take a full history, examine the patient including a smear, take blood, counsel the patient about options, and agree a management plan).

I could not deliver all this to the patient in 10 minutes flat, even if she took no active part in the consultation. This is a perfect example of the sort of complex consultation that general practitioners encounter these days when patients (quite rightly) want to express their own opinions, show us internet printouts, and even ask questions. The emphasis in general practitioners' training on sharing understanding and decision making with the patient is, in my view, correct.

But few consultations are as “pure” as the one described by Hope. Many patients, particularly older ones, take time to convey their concerns and assimilate the content of the consultation—even dressing and undressing can take almost 10 minutes. We have a choice of believing that patient centred consultations are what patients want (which must mean longer consultations and smaller list sizes) or accepting that we will have to run late or cut some uncomfortable corners.

What next for your 10-minute consultation series? Ten-minute palliative care? Ten-minute dementia? Ten-minute depression? Ten-minute anaemia? The alternative would be to extend the consultation, or manage our time by arranging for the patient to come back to complete all the tasks. But that would not really be a 10-minute consultation. Good idea, good first article. But I strongly urge you to consider renaming this series. “The 20-minute consultation” might just cover it on a good day.

References


Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES