OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic consequences of labour induction with Foley catheter compared to prostaglandin E2 gel. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING:Obstetric departments of one university and 11 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: 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. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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. RESULTS: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. CONCLUSIONS:Foley catheter and prostaglandin E2 labour induction generate comparable costs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the economic consequences of labour induction with Foley catheter compared to prostaglandin E2 gel. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Obstetric departments of one university and 11 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: 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. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS:Foley catheter and prostaglandin E2 labour induction generate comparable costs.
Authors: S Kehl; C Weiss; U Dammer; E Raabe; S Burghaus; J Heimrich; J Hackl; M Winkler; M W Beckmann; F Faschingbauer Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Marieke Dt de Vaan; Mieke Lg Ten Eikelder; Marta Jozwiak; Kirsten R Palmer; Miranda Davies-Tuck; Kitty Wm Bloemenkamp; Ben Willem J Mol; Michel Boulvain Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-10-18
Authors: Marit Hitzert; Marieke Maa Hermus; Inge Ic Boesveld; Arie Franx; Karin Km van der Pal-de Bruin; Eric Eap Steegers; EIske Me van den Akker-van Marle Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Karen Broekhuizen; David Simmons; Roland Devlieger; André van Assche; Goele Jans; Sander Galjaard; Rosa Corcoy; Juan M Adelantado; Fidelma Dunne; Gernot Desoye; Jürgen Harreiter; Alexandra Kautzky-Willer; Peter Damm; Elisabeth R Mathiesen; Dorte M Jensen; Liselotte L Andersen; Annunziata Lapolla; Maria G Dalfra; Alessandra Bertolotto; Ewa Wender-Ozegowska; Agnieszka Zawiejska; David Hill; Frank J Snoek; Judith G M Jelsma; Judith E Bosmans; Mireille N M van Poppel; Johanna M van Dongen Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Mohamed El Alili; Johanna M van Dongen; Judith A F Huirne; Maurits W van Tulder; Judith E Bosmans Journal: Pharmacoeconomics Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 4.981