Dataset Information

At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Fawsitt CG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3590223 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery.

Fawsitt Christopher G CG Bourke Jane J Greene Richard A RA Everard Claire M CM Murphy Aileen A Lutomski Jennifer E JE

PloS one 20130306 3

<h4>Background</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 23484038

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe OptiBIRTH study incorporates a multicentre cluster randomised trial in 15 hospital sites across three European countries. The trial was designed to test a complex intervention aimed at improving vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC) rates through increasing women's involvement in their care. Prior to developing a robust standardised model to conduct the health economic analysis, an analysis of a hypothetical cohort was performed to estimate the costs and health effects of VBAC compared to elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) for low-risk women in four European countries.MethodsA decision-analytic model was developed to estimate the costs and the health effects, measured using Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs), of VBAC compared with ERCD. A cost-effectiveness analysis for the period from confirmation of pregnancy to 6 weeks postpartum was performed for short-term consequences and during lifetime for long-term consequences, based on a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 pregnant women in each of four different countries; Belgium, Germany, Ireland and Italy. A societal perspective was adopted. Where possible, transition probabilities, costs and health effects were adapted from national data obtained from the respective countries. Country-specific thresholds were used to determine the cost-effectiveness of VBAC compared to ERCD. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the uncertainty of model assumptions.ResultsWithin a 6-week time horizon, VBAC resulted in a reduction in costs, ranging from €3,334,052 (Germany) to €66,162,379 (Ireland), and gains in QALYs ranging from 6399 (Italy) to 7561 (Germany) per 100,000 women birthing in each country. Compared to ERCD, VBAC is the dominant strategy in all four countries. Applying a lifetime horizon, VBAC is dominant compared to ERCD in all countries except for Germany (probabilistic analysis, ICER: €8609/QALY). In conclusion, compared to ERCD, VBAC remains cost-effective when using a lifetime time.ConclusionsIn all four countries, VBAC was cost-effective compared to ERCD for low-risk women. This is important for health service managers, economists and policy makers concerned with maximising health benefits within limited and constrained resources.

Project description:Trial of labour is a safe option for most women after one previous caesarean delivery. However, the proportion of women attempting trial of labour after previous caesarean delivery (TOLAC) has been declining in many countries. In addition, women with prior caesarean delivery appear to know little regarding their mode of delivery and healthcare providers' recommendations. The doctors' preferences exert a strong influence on patient's decision whether or not to pursue TOLAC. In Kenya, it is unclear whether women who opt for trial of labour after caesarean delivery (TOLAC) or elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) do that based on clear understanding of risks and benefits of both modes of delivery. This study aimed at determining whether patients with one previous caesarean delivery make an informed decision on preferred mode of delivery following their interactions with doctors.A cross-sectional descriptive study was carried out on 202 pregnant women with one previous caesarean delivery at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) antenatal clinic. Data was collected from both the patients' records and women were interviewed using a structured questionnaire.Out of 202 women with mean age of 30.2 years 136 (67.2%) chose Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery (ERCD), while 66 (32.8%) opted for TOLAC. Only 61/202 (30.6%; 95% C.I: 24.4 to 37.6%) made informed decisions. Few women (65: 32.2%) knew that the chance of successful TOLAC was high (60-80%) and 97 (48%) were not aware of the chances for a successful TOLAC. More than half of the women (109: 53.9%) were unaware of the risk of uterine rupture after one previous delivery and only few patients (64: 31.7%) knew that the risk of uterine rupture in TOLAC is low (< 1%). The majority of the women (112: 55.4%) did not know that the indications for previous caesarean delivery are an important factor in determining the chance of a successful Vaginal Birth after Caesarean Delivery (VBAC). For 47(23.3%) of the women, there was no documented indication for the previous caesarean delivery. The women's mode of delivery was significantly associated with the preference of the counseling doctor (p < 0.001) and their qualification (p = 0.020). Only 23 (11.4%) women signed the consent form for ERCD while none of the women for TOLAC signed any consent form.There was an overall lack of information on both modes of delivery while doctor's preferences affected women's decisions. Only just under one third of the women made an informed decision. There is a need to develop clear standard protocols and checklists for information to be disseminated to doctors and all patients with previous caesarean deliveries in subsequent pregnancies in Kenya.

Project description:Widespread increases in caesarean section (CS) rates have sparked concerns about risks to mothers and infants and rising healthcare costs. A multicentre, two-arm, cluster-randomized trial in Quebec, Canada assessed whether an audit and feedback intervention targeting health professionals would reduce CS rates for pregnant women compared to usual care, and concluded that it reduced CS rates without adverse effects on maternal or neonatal health. The effect was statistically significant but clinically small. We assessed cost-effectiveness to inform scale-up decisions.A prospective economic evaluation was undertaken using individual patient data from the Quality of Care, Obstetrics Risk Management, and Mode of Delivery (QUARISMA) trial (April 2008 to October 2011). Analyses took a healthcare payer perspective. The time horizon captured hospital-based costs and clinical events for mothers and neonates from labour onset to 3 months postpartum. Resource use was identified and measured from patient charts and valued using standardized government sources. We estimated the changes in CS rates and costs for the intervention group (versus controls) between the baseline and post-intervention periods. We examined heterogeneity between clinical subgroups of high-risk versus low-risk pregnancies and estimated the joint uncertainty in cost-effectiveness over 20,000 trial simulations. We decomposed costs to identify drivers of change.The intervention group experienced per-patient reductions of 0.005 CS (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.015 to 0.004, P?=?0.09) and $180 (95% CI: -$277 to?-?$83, P?<?0.001). Women with low-risk pregnancies experienced statistically significant reductions in CS rates and costs; changes for the high-risk subgroup were not significant. The intervention was "dominant" (effective in reducing CS and less costly than usual care) in 86.08% of simulations. It reduced costs in 99.99% of simulations. Cost reductions were driven by lower rates of neonatal complications in the intervention group (-$190, 95% CI: -$255 to?-?$125, P?<?0.001). Given 88,000 annual provincial births, a similar intervention could save $15.8 million (range: $7.3 to $24.4 million) in Quebec annually.From a healthcare payer perspective, a multifaceted intervention involving audits and feedback resulted in a small reduction in caesarean deliveries and important cost savings. Cost reductions are consistent with improved quality of care in intervention group hospitals.International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ISRCTN95086407 . Registered on 23 October 2007.

Project description:BackgroundAbout a third of women experience severe back pain during labour. Injecting small volumes of intracutaneous sterile water into the lumbar region can be used to relieve this pain, however the procedure is controversial and previous reviews call for high quality trials to establish efficacy. We evaluated the impact on birth outcomes and analgesic effects of sterile water injections.MethodsA multicentre, double-blind trial undertaken between December 2012 and December 2017 in one British and 15 Australian maternity units. Women experiencing severe back-pain in labour were assigned (1:1) by an independently generated randomisation schedule stratified by site to injections of either sterile water or saline placebo. Participants and caregivers were blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome was caesarean delivery rate. Main secondary outcomes included at least 30% or 50% reduction in self-reported pain scores at 30, 60 and 90 minutes after treatment. Intention to treat analysis were used and the level of significance for the multiple clinical outcomes was set at p<0.001 with the Bonferroni correction applied. The study is registered with the ACTRN Registry number, ACTRN1261100022195.FindingsBetween December 9, 2012, and December 15, 2017, 1166 women were recruited and randomised: 587 women received sterile water injections (SWI) and 579 a saline placebo. Seven women in the SWI group and 12 in the placebo group were excluded as consent was not completed, leaving 580 and 567, respectively, included in the analysis. The proportions of caesarean delivery were 17·1% (82 of 580) in the SWI group and 14·8% (82 of 567) in the placebo (RR 1·16, 95% CI 0·88-1.51; p = 0·293). At 30 min post treatment 60·8% (330 of 543) of women in the SWI group reported a 30% reduction in self-reported pain compared to 31·4% (163 of 520) placebo (RR 1·94, 95% CI 1·68-2·24; p=<0·001) and 43·3% (235 of 534) SWI reported a 50% reduction versus 18·1% (94 of 520) placebo (RR 2·39, 95% CI 1·95-2·94; p=<0·001). The analgesic effect of SWI compared to placebo remained significant at 60 and 90 min post-treatment. There were no significant differences in other maternal or neonatal outcomes.InterpretationCompared to placebo, injections of sterile water did not reduce rates of caesarean delivery. For the main secondary outcome of pain relief the intervention did result in significantly more women reporting at least 30% and 50% reduction in pain for up to 90 min. Water injections have no effect on birth outcomes though can be an effective treatment for the relief of labour-related back pain.Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Dataset Information

At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets