Rogers Anna Joy, Rogers Nathaniel G, Kilgore Meredith L, Subramaniam Akila, Harper Lorie M
Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Departments of Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA.
Value Health. 2017 Jan;20(1):163-173. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.738. Epub 2016 Nov 11.
For women who have had a previous low transverse cesarean delivery, the decision to undergo a trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) or an elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) has important clinical and economic ramifications.
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the alternative choices of a TOLAC and an ERCD for women with low-risk, singleton gestation pregnancies.
We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EconLit, and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry with no language, publication, or date restrictions up until October 2015. Studies were included if they were primary research, compared a TOLAC with an ERCD, and provided information on the relative cost of the alternatives. Abstracts and partial economic evaluations were excluded.
Of 310 studies initially reviewed, 7 studies were included in the systematic review. In the base-case analyses, 4 studies concluded that TOLAC was dominant over ERCD, 1 study found ERCD to be dominant, and 2 studies found that although TOLAC was more costly, it offered more benefits and was thus cost-effective from a population perspective when considering societal willingness to pay for better outcomes. In sensitivity analyses, cost-effectiveness was found to be dependent on a high likelihood of TOLAC success, low risk of uterine rupture, and low relative cost of TOLAC compared with ERCD.
For women who are likely to have a successful vaginal delivery, routine ERCD may result in excess morbidity and cost from a population perspective.
对于既往有低位横切口剖宫产史的女性,决定进行剖宫产术后阴道试产(TOLAC)还是择期再次剖宫产(ERCD)具有重要的临床和经济意义。
评估TOLAC和ERCD这两种选择对于低风险单胎妊娠女性的成本效益。
我们检索了EMBASE、MEDLINE、CINAHL、Cochrane图书馆、EconLit和成本效益分析注册库,检索截至2015年10月,无语言、出版时间或日期限制。纳入的研究需为原始研究,比较TOLAC和ERCD,并提供两种选择相对成本的信息。排除摘要和部分经济评估。
在最初检索的310项研究中,7项研究纳入了系统评价。在基础病例分析中,4项研究得出TOLAC优于ERCD的结论,1项研究发现ERCD占优,2项研究发现尽管TOLAC成本更高,但它能带来更多益处,因此从总体人群角度考虑社会为更好结局的支付意愿时,TOLAC具有成本效益。在敏感性分析中,发现成本效益取决于TOLAC成功的高可能性、子宫破裂的低风险以及与ERCD相比TOLAC的相对低成本。
对于有可能成功进行阴道分娩的女性,从总体人群角度看,常规的ERCD可能会导致额外的发病率和成本。