Austin Kathryn, Chambers Georgina M, de Abreu Lourenco Richard, Madan Arushi, Susic Daniella, Henry Amanda
Royal Hospital for Women, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia.
National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit, School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Oct;55(5):440-5. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12348. Epub 2015 Jul 14.
Evaluating cost-effectiveness of induction of labour (IOL) using outpatient mechanical cervical ripening using a Foley catheter (OFC) compared to inpatient chemical ripening using prostin gel (IPG).
Cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective alongside a RCT. Women in a metropolitan Australian maternity hospital with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term were randomised to IPG (n = 51) or OFC (n = 50). Primary economic measures were mean patient costs, incremental cost per predelivery inpatient hour prevented, and incremental cost per vaginal delivery within 12 h of admission to the birthing unit. Bootstrapping estimates were used to construct 95% confidence intervals. Estimates of net monetary benefit were calculated to aid interpretation of the results.
Mean hospital costs per woman were nonsignificantly higher ($6524 OFC vs $5876 IPG) and mean difference $643; 95% CI -$366 to $1652. OFC group experienced fewer predelivery inpatient hours, resulting in an incremental cost per inpatient hour prevented of $57 (95% CI -$79.44 to $190.65). However, OFC patients were less likely to deliver vaginally within 12 h of admission to birthing unit. Other cost influencing clinical outcomes, including caesarean section rates and total inpatient hours, were not statistically different. Results were not sensitive to changes in costs or the cost-effectiveness thresholds.
OFC had fewer inpatient hours and costs prior to birth. However, OFC did not reduce overall inpatient hours and failed to achieve comparable rates of vaginal delivery within 12 h of birthing unit admission. Therefore, OFC is unlikely to be considered cost-effective compared to IPG in current hospital settings.
评估使用福乐氏导尿管进行门诊机械性宫颈成熟诱导分娩(IOL)与使用普贝生凝胶进行住院化学性宫颈成熟诱导分娩(IPG)的成本效益。
从医院角度进行成本效益分析并开展随机对照试验。澳大利亚一家大都市妇产医院中宫颈条件不佳、足月需要诱导分娩的女性被随机分为普贝生凝胶组(n = 51)或福乐氏导尿管组(n = 50)。主要经济指标为平均患者成本、每预防1小时分娩前住院时间的增量成本以及入院至分娩单元12小时内每例阴道分娩的增量成本。采用自抽样估计构建95%置信区间。计算净货币效益估计值以辅助结果解读。
每名女性的平均住院成本福乐氏导尿管组略高但无显著差异(福乐氏导尿管组为6524美元,普贝生凝胶组为5876美元),平均差值为643美元;95%置信区间为 -366美元至1652美元。福乐氏导尿管组的分娩前住院时间较少,每预防1小时住院时间的增量成本为57美元(95%置信区间为 -79.44美元至190.65美元)。然而,福乐氏导尿管组患者在入院至分娩单元12小时内阴道分娩的可能性较小。其他影响临床结局的成本,包括剖宫产率和总住院时间,无统计学差异。结果对成本或成本效益阈值的变化不敏感。
福乐氏导尿管组在分娩前的住院时间和成本较少。然而,福乐氏导尿管组并未减少总体住院时间,且未能在入院至分娩单元12小时内实现相当的阴道分娩率。因此,在当前医院环境下,与普贝生凝胶相比,福乐氏导尿管不太可能被认为具有成本效益。