Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California San Francisco, UCSF Center for Reproductive Health, San Francisco, California, USA.
Fertil Steril. 2012 Jul;98(1):151-5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.04.007.
To compare the cost of two strategies for managing the patient with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL).
Cost analysis using a decision analytic model was used to compare obtaining an evidence-based workup (EBW) for RPL versus obtaining a karyotype of the products of conception (POC) and proceeding with an EBW only in the setting of euploid POC.
Outpatient care.
PATIENT(S): A simulated cohort of patients experiencing a second pregnancy loss.
INTERVENTION(S): Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Total cost of investigating the cause of RPL after a second pregnancy loss.
RESULT(S): For all age categories, obtaining a karyotype of POC was less costly than an evidenced-based RPL evaluation. Monte Caro analysis demonstrated a net economic benefit for the karyotype strategy ($4,498 [±$792] vs. $5,022 [±$1,130]).
CONCLUSION(S): Our model suggests an economic advantage for obtaining a karyotype of POC in women with second miscarriage.
比较两种复发性妊娠丢失（RPL）患者管理策略的成本。
使用决策分析模型进行成本分析，以比较对 RPL 进行基于证据的检查（EBW）与对妊娠产物（POC）进行核型分析并仅在 POC 正常的情况下进行 EBW 的策略。
门诊护理。
经历第二次妊娠丢失的模拟队列患者。
不适用。
第二次妊娠丢失后调查 RPL 病因的总成本。
对于所有年龄段，对 POC 进行核型分析比基于证据的 RPL 评估成本更低。蒙特卡罗分析显示核型策略具有净经济效益（$4498[±$792] 比 $5022[±$1130]）。
我们的模型表明，对第二次流产的女性进行 POC 核型分析具有经济优势。
