Cargando…

At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery

BACKGROUND: Elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) rates have been increasing worldwide, thus prompting obstetric discourse on the risks and benefits for the mother and infant. Yet, these increasing rates also have major economic implications for the health care system. Given the dearth of inform...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fawsitt, Christopher G., Bourke, Jane, Greene, Richard A., Everard, Claire M., Murphy, Aileen, Lutomski, Jennifer E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23484038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058577
_version_ 1782261832490156032
author Fawsitt, Christopher G.
Bourke, Jane
Greene, Richard A.
Everard, Claire M.
Murphy, Aileen
Lutomski, Jennifer E.
author_facet Fawsitt, Christopher G.
Bourke, Jane
Greene, Richard A.
Everard, Claire M.
Murphy, Aileen
Lutomski, Jennifer E.
author_sort Fawsitt, Christopher G.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) rates have been increasing worldwide, thus prompting obstetric discourse on the risks and benefits for the mother and infant. Yet, these increasing rates also have major economic implications for the health care system. Given the dearth of information on the cost-effectiveness related to mode of delivery, the aim of this paper was to perform an economic evaluation on the costs and short-term maternal health consequences associated with a trial of labour after one previous caesarean delivery compared with ERCD for low risk women in Ireland. METHODS: Using a decision analytic model, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed where the measure of health gain was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a six-week time horizon. A review of international literature was conducted to derive representative estimates of adverse maternal health outcomes following a trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) and ERCD. Delivery/procedure costs derived from primary data collection and combined both “bottom-up” and “top-down” costing estimations. RESULTS: Maternal morbidities emerged in twice as many cases in the TOLAC group than the ERCD group. However, a TOLAC was found to be the most-effective method of delivery because it was substantially less expensive than ERCD (€1,835.06 versus €4,039.87 per women, respectively), and QALYs were modestly higher (0.84 versus 0.70). Our findings were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians need to be well informed of the benefits and risks of TOLAC among low risk women. Ideally, clinician-patient discourse would address differences in length of hospital stay and postpartum recovery time. While it is premature advocate a policy of TOLAC across maternity units, the results of the study prompt further analysis and repeat iterations, encouraging future studies to synthesis previous research and new and relevant evidence under a single comprehensive decision model.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3590223
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35902232013-03-12 At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery Fawsitt, Christopher G. Bourke, Jane Greene, Richard A. Everard, Claire M. Murphy, Aileen Lutomski, Jennifer E. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) rates have been increasing worldwide, thus prompting obstetric discourse on the risks and benefits for the mother and infant. Yet, these increasing rates also have major economic implications for the health care system. Given the dearth of information on the cost-effectiveness related to mode of delivery, the aim of this paper was to perform an economic evaluation on the costs and short-term maternal health consequences associated with a trial of labour after one previous caesarean delivery compared with ERCD for low risk women in Ireland. METHODS: Using a decision analytic model, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed where the measure of health gain was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a six-week time horizon. A review of international literature was conducted to derive representative estimates of adverse maternal health outcomes following a trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) and ERCD. Delivery/procedure costs derived from primary data collection and combined both “bottom-up” and “top-down” costing estimations. RESULTS: Maternal morbidities emerged in twice as many cases in the TOLAC group than the ERCD group. However, a TOLAC was found to be the most-effective method of delivery because it was substantially less expensive than ERCD (€1,835.06 versus €4,039.87 per women, respectively), and QALYs were modestly higher (0.84 versus 0.70). Our findings were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians need to be well informed of the benefits and risks of TOLAC among low risk women. Ideally, clinician-patient discourse would address differences in length of hospital stay and postpartum recovery time. While it is premature advocate a policy of TOLAC across maternity units, the results of the study prompt further analysis and repeat iterations, encouraging future studies to synthesis previous research and new and relevant evidence under a single comprehensive decision model. Public Library of Science 2013-03-06 /pmc/articles/PMC3590223/ /pubmed/23484038 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058577 Text en © 2013 Fawsitt et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Fawsitt, Christopher G.
Bourke, Jane
Greene, Richard A.
Everard, Claire M.
Murphy, Aileen
Lutomski, Jennifer E.
At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery
title At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery
title_full At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery
title_fullStr At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery
title_full_unstemmed At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery
title_short At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery
title_sort at what price? a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3590223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23484038
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058577
work_keys_str_mv AT fawsittchristopherg atwhatpriceacosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingtrialoflabourafterpreviouscaesareanversuselectiverepeatcaesareandelivery
AT bourkejane atwhatpriceacosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingtrialoflabourafterpreviouscaesareanversuselectiverepeatcaesareandelivery
AT greenericharda atwhatpriceacosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingtrialoflabourafterpreviouscaesareanversuselectiverepeatcaesareandelivery
AT everardclairem atwhatpriceacosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingtrialoflabourafterpreviouscaesareanversuselectiverepeatcaesareandelivery
AT murphyaileen atwhatpriceacosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingtrialoflabourafterpreviouscaesareanversuselectiverepeatcaesareandelivery
AT lutomskijennifere atwhatpriceacosteffectivenessanalysiscomparingtrialoflabourafterpreviouscaesareanversuselectiverepeatcaesareandelivery