| Literature DB >> 23602685 |
Jenneke C Kasius1, René J C Eijkemans, Ben W J Mol, Bart C J M Fauser, Human M Fatemi, Frank J M Broekmans.
Abstract
This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of office hysteroscopy screening prior to IVF. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness of two distinct strategies - hysteroscopy after two failed IVF cycles (Failedhyst) and routine hysteroscopy prior to IVF (Routinehyst) - was compared with the reference strategy of no hysteroscopy (Nohyst). When present, intrauterine pathology was treated during hysteroscopy. Two models were constructed and evaluated in a decision analysis. In model I, all patients had an increase in pregnancy rate after screening hysteroscopy prior to IVF; in model II, only patients with intrauterine pathology would benefit. For each strategy, the total costs and live birth rates after a total of three IVF cycles were assessed. For model I (all patients benefit from hysteroscopy), Routinehyst was always cost-effective compared with Nohyst or Failedhyst. For the Routinehyst strategy, a monetary profit would be obtained in the case where hysteroscopy would increase the live birth rate after IVF by ≥ 2.8%. In model II (only patients with pathology benefit from hysteroscopy), Routinehyst also dominated Failedhyst. However, hysteroscopy performance resulted in considerable costs. In conclusion, the application of a routine hysteroscopy prior to IVF could be cost-effective. However, randomized trials confirming the effectiveness of hysteroscopy are needed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23602685 DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.02.015
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Biomed Online ISSN: 1472-6483 Impact factor: 3.828