TY - JOUR
T1 - Cost-effectiveness of induction of labour at term with a Foley catheter compared to vaginal prostaglandin E₂ gel (PROBAAT trial)
AU - van Baaren, G. J.
AU - Jozwiak, M.
AU - Opmeer, B. C.
AU - Oude Rengerink, K.
AU - Benthem, M.
AU - Dijksterhuis, M. G. K.
AU - van Huizen, M. E.
AU - van der Salm, P. C. M.
AU - Schuitemaker, N. W. E.
AU - Papatsonis, D. N. M.
AU - Perquin, D. A. M.
AU - Porath, M.
AU - van der Post, J. A. M.
AU - Rijnders, R. J. P.
AU - Scheepers, H. C. J.
AU - Spaanderman, M.
AU - van Pampus, M. G.
AU - de Leeuw, J. W.
AU - Mol, B. W. J.
AU - Bloemenkamp, K. W. M.
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - To assess the economic consequences of labour induction with Foley catheter compared to prostaglandin E2 gel. Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Obstetric departments of one university and 11 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Women scheduled for labour induction with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation at term, intact membranes and an unfavourable cervix; and without previous caesarean section. Cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation to 6 weeks postpartum. For caesarean section rate, and maternal and neonatal morbidity we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, which represent the costs to prevent one of these adverse outcomes. Mean costs per woman in the Foley catheter group (n = 411) and in the prostaglandin E₂ gel group (n = 408), were €3297 versus €3075, respectively, with an average difference of €222 (95% confidence interval -€157 to €633). In the Foley catheter group we observed higher costs due to longer labour ward occupation and less cost related to induction material and neonatal admissions. Foley catheter induction showed a comparable caesarean section rate compared with prostaglandin induction, therefore the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not informative. Foley induction resulted in fewer neonatal admissions (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €2708) and asphyxia/postpartum haemorrhage (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios €5257) compared with prostaglandin induction. Foley catheter and prostaglandin E2 labour induction generate comparable costs
AB - To assess the economic consequences of labour induction with Foley catheter compared to prostaglandin E2 gel. Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Obstetric departments of one university and 11 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Women scheduled for labour induction with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation at term, intact membranes and an unfavourable cervix; and without previous caesarean section. Cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation to 6 weeks postpartum. For caesarean section rate, and maternal and neonatal morbidity we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, which represent the costs to prevent one of these adverse outcomes. Mean costs per woman in the Foley catheter group (n = 411) and in the prostaglandin E₂ gel group (n = 408), were €3297 versus €3075, respectively, with an average difference of €222 (95% confidence interval -€157 to €633). In the Foley catheter group we observed higher costs due to longer labour ward occupation and less cost related to induction material and neonatal admissions. Foley catheter induction showed a comparable caesarean section rate compared with prostaglandin induction, therefore the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not informative. Foley induction resulted in fewer neonatal admissions (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €2708) and asphyxia/postpartum haemorrhage (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios €5257) compared with prostaglandin induction. Foley catheter and prostaglandin E2 labour induction generate comparable costs
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12221
DO - https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12221
M3 - Article
C2 - 23530729
SN - 1470-0328
VL - 120
SP - 987
EP - 995
JO - BJOG
JF - BJOG
IS - 8
ER -