Suppr超能文献

宫颈托与阴道孕酮用于预防双胎妊娠和短宫颈孕妇早产的比较:随机对照试验后的经济学分析。

Cervical pessary vs vaginal progesterone for prevention of preterm birth in women with twin pregnancy and short cervix: economic analysis following randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

HOPE Research Center, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

My Duc Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.

出版信息

Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Mar;55(3):339-347. doi: 10.1002/uog.20848.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of cervical pessary vs vaginal progesterone to prevent preterm birth and neonatal morbidity in women with twin pregnancy and a short cervix.

METHODS

Between 4 March 2016 and 3 June 2017, we performed this economic analysis following a randomized controlled trial (RCT), performed at My Duc Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, that compared cervical pessary to vaginal progesterone in women with twin pregnancy and cervical length < 38 mm between 16 and 22 weeks of gestation. We used morbidity-free neonatal survival as a measure of effectiveness. Data on pregnancy outcome, maternal morbidity and neonatal complications were collected prospectively from medical files; additional information was obtained via telephone interviews with the patients. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated as the incremental cost required to achieve one extra surviving morbidity-free neonate in the pessary group compared with in the progesterone group. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were also performed.

RESULTS

During the study period, we screened 1113 women with twin pregnancy, of whom 300 fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the RCT and gave informed consent to participate. These women were assigned randomly to receive cervical pessary (n = 150) or vaginal progesterone (n = 150), with two women and one woman, respectively, being lost to follow-up. The rate of morbidity-free neonatal survival was significantly higher in the pessary group compared with the progesterone group (n = 241/296 (81.4%) vs 219/298 (73.5%); relative risk, 1.11 (95% CI, 1.02-1.21), P = 0.02). The mean total cost per woman was 3146 € in the pessary group vs 3570 € in the progesterone group (absolute difference, -424 € (95% CI, -842 to -3 €), P = 0.048). The cost per morbidity-free neonate was significantly lower in the pessary group compared with that in the progesterone group (2492 vs 2639 €; absolute difference, -147 € (95% CI, -284 to 10 €), P = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

In women with twin pregnancy and a short cervix, cervical pessary improves significantly the rate of morbidity-free neonatal survival while reducing costs, as compared with vaginal progesterone. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

摘要

目的

比较宫颈托与阴道孕酮预防双胎妊娠宫颈短孕妇早产及新生儿发病的成本效益。

方法

2016 年 3 月 4 日至 2017 年 6 月 3 日,我们在越南胡志明市的 My Duc 医院进行了这项经济分析,该分析是在一项随机对照试验(RCT)之后进行的,比较了宫颈托与阴道孕酮在妊娠 16 至 22 周、宫颈长度<38mm 的双胎妊娠妇女中的作用。我们以无病新生儿存活率作为有效性的衡量标准。从病历中前瞻性收集妊娠结局、产妇发病率和新生儿并发症的数据;通过与患者的电话访谈获得其他信息。计算宫颈托组与孕酮组相比每增加一名存活无病新生儿所需的增量成本效益比。还进行了概率和单向敏感性分析。

结果

在研究期间,我们筛查了 1113 例双胎妊娠妇女,其中 300 例符合 RCT 的纳入标准并同意参加。这些妇女被随机分配接受宫颈托(n=150)或阴道孕酮(n=150)治疗,分别有 2 名和 1 名妇女失访。与孕酮组相比,宫颈托组无病新生儿存活率显著更高(n=241/296(81.4%)与 219/298(73.5%);相对风险,1.11(95%CI,1.02-1.21),P=0.02)。宫颈托组每位妇女的平均总成本为 3146 欧元,孕酮组为 3570 欧元(绝对差异,-424 欧元(95%CI,-842 至-3 欧元),P=0.048)。与孕酮组相比,宫颈托组每例无病新生儿的成本显著降低(2492 欧元与 2639 欧元;绝对差异,-147 欧元(95%CI,-284 至 10 欧元),P=0.035)。

结论

与阴道孕酮相比,宫颈托可显著提高无病新生儿存活率,同时降低成本,用于治疗宫颈短的双胎妊娠妇女。版权所有©2019ISUOG。由 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 出版。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验