Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of single-layer versus double-layer uterine closure during caesarean section on postmenstrual spotting: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of double-layer compared with single-layer uterine closure after a first caesarean section (CS) from a societal and healthcare perspective.

Design

Economic evaluation alongside a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Setting

32 hospitals in the Netherlands, 2016-2018.

Participants

2292 women ≥18 years undergoing a first CS were randomly assigned (1:1). Exclusion criteria were: inability for counselling, previous uterine surgery, known menstrual disorder, placenta increta or percreta, pregnant with three or more fetuses. 1144 women were assigned to single-layer and 1148 to double-layer closure. We included 1620 women with a menstrual cycle in the main analysis.

Interventions

Single-layer unlocked uterine closure and double-layer unlocked uterine closure with the second layer imbricating the first.

Main outcome measures

Spotting days, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and societal costs at 9 months of follow-up. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation.

Results

No significant differences were found between single-layer versus double-layer closure in mean spotting days (1.44 and 1.39 days; mean difference (md) -0.056, 95% CI -0.374 to 0.263), QALYs (0.663 and 0.658; md -0.005, 95% CI -0.015 to 0.005), total healthcare costs (€744 and €727; md €-17, 95% CI -273 to 143), and total societal costs (€5689 and €5927; md €238, 95% CI -624 to 1108). The probability of the intervention being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay of €0, €10 000 and €20 000/QALY gained was 0.30, 0.27 and 0.25, respectively, (societal perspective), and 0.55, 0.41 and 0.32, respectively, (healthcare perspective).

Conclusion

Double-layer uterine closure is not cost-effective compared with single-layer uterine closure from both perspectives. If this is confirmed by our long-term reproductive follow-up, we suggest to adjust uterine closure technique guidelines.

Trial registration number

NTR5480/NL5380.

SUBMITTER: Stegwee SI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8256741 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:IntroductionRecently, the rate of caesarean sections (CS) worldwide has risen and CS-associated complications such as niche have increased substantially. Until now, evidence-based clinical guidelines for the treatment of niche-related symptoms remain absent. In patients with postmenstrual spotting, it has not been studied if the effect of levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system (LNG-IUS 52 mg) is superior to that of hysteroscopy. This study will answer the question of whether LNG-IUS 52 mg is more effective in improving postmenstrual spotting than hysteroscopic niche resection in women with niche-related spotting at 6 months after randomisation.Methods and analysisThis is a randomised controlled trial. A total of 208 women with postmenstrual spotting related to niche in the caesarean uterine scar of at least 2 mm and residual myometrium of at least 2.2 mm evaluated by MRI will be included. Women desiring to conceive within 1 year, with contraindications for LNG-IUS 52 mg or hysteroscopic surgery will be excluded. After informed consent is obtained, eligible women will be randomly allocated to LNG-IUS 52 mg or hysteroscopic niche resection at 1:1. The primary outcome is the efficacy in reducing postmenstrual spotting at 6 months after randomisation. The secondary outcomes include menstrual pattern, total days of blood loss per month, rate of amenorrhoea, side effects and complications.We will use a Visual Analogue Scale for chronic pelvic pain, urological symptoms and women's satisfaction (five-point Likert scale).Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the local medical ethics committee and by the Institutional Review Board of the International Peace Maternity and Child Health Hospital, Shanghai, China (No. GKLW 2019-08). Participants will sign a written informed consent before participation. The results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.Trial registration numberChiCTR1900025677.