Kimberley Bonouvrié1, Anouk van den Bosch1, Frans J M E Roumen2, Sander M van Kuijk3, Jan G Nijhuis1, Silvia M A A Evers4, Martine M L H Wassen5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Grow School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Zuyderland Medical Centre, Heerlen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Medical Technology Assessment (KEMTA), Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Health Services Research, Caphri School of Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Grow School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, Maastricht University Medical Centre+, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: martine_wassen@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of routine labour epidural analgesia (EA), from a societal perspective, as compared with labour analgesia on request. STUDY DESIGN:Women delivering of a singleton in cephalic presentation beyond 36+0 weeks' gestation were randomly allocated to routine labour EA or analgesia on request in one university and one non-university teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Costs included all medical, non-medical and indirect costs from randomisation to 6 weeks postpartum. Effectiveness was defined as a non-operative, spontaneous vaginal delivery without EA-related maternal adverse effects. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as the ratio of the difference in costs and the difference in effectiveness between both groups. Data were analysed according to intention to treat and divided into a base case analysis and a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS:Total delivery costs in the routine EA group (n=233) were higher than in the labour on request group (n=255) (difference -€ 322, 95% CI -€ 60 to € 355) due to more medication costs (including EA), a longer stay in the labour ward, and more operations including caesarean sections. Total postpartum hospital costs in the routine EA group were lower (difference -€ 344, 95% CI -€ 1338 to € 621) mainly due to less neonatal admissions (difference -€ 472, 95% CI -€ 1297 to € 331), whereas total postpartum home and others costs were comparable (difference -€ 20, 95% CI -€ 267 to € 248, and -€ 1, 95% CI -€ 67 to € 284, respectively). As a result, the overall mean costs per woman were comparable between the routine EA group and the analgesia on request group (€ 8.708 and € 8.710, respectively, mean difference -€ 2, 95% CI -€ 1.012 to € 916). Routine labour EA resulted in more deliveries with maternal adverse effects, nevertheless the ICER remained low (€ 8; bootstrap 95% CI -€ 6.120 to € 8.659). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated a low probability that routine EA is cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Routine labour EA generates comparable costs as analgesia on request, but results in more operative deliveries and more EA-related maternal adverse effects. Based on cost-effectiveness, no preference can be given to routine labour EA as compared with analgesia on request.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of routine labour epidural analgesia (EA), from a societal perspective, as compared with labour analgesia on request. STUDY DESIGN:Women delivering of a singleton in cephalic presentation beyond 36+0 weeks' gestation were randomly allocated to routine labour EA or analgesia on request in one university and one non-university teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Costs included all medical, non-medical and indirect costs from randomisation to 6 weeks postpartum. Effectiveness was defined as a non-operative, spontaneous vaginal delivery without EA-related maternal adverse effects. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was defined as the ratio of the difference in costs and the difference in effectiveness between both groups. Data were analysed according to intention to treat and divided into a base case analysis and a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Total delivery costs in the routine EA group (n=233) were higher than in the labour on request group (n=255) (difference -€ 322, 95% CI -€ 60 to € 355) due to more medication costs (including EA), a longer stay in the labour ward, and more operations including caesarean sections. Total postpartum hospital costs in the routine EA group were lower (difference -€ 344, 95% CI -€ 1338 to € 621) mainly due to less neonatal admissions (difference -€ 472, 95% CI -€ 1297 to € 331), whereas total postpartum home and others costs were comparable (difference -€ 20, 95% CI -€ 267 to € 248, and -€ 1, 95% CI -€ 67 to € 284, respectively). As a result, the overall mean costs per woman were comparable between the routine EA group and the analgesia on request group (€ 8.708 and € 8.710, respectively, mean difference -€ 2, 95% CI -€ 1.012 to € 916). Routine labour EA resulted in more deliveries with maternal adverse effects, nevertheless the ICER remained low (€ 8; bootstrap 95% CI -€ 6.120 to € 8.659). The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated a low probability that routine EA is cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Routine labour EA generates comparable costs as analgesia on request, but results in more operative deliveries and more EA-related maternal adverse effects. Based on cost-effectiveness, no preference can be given to routine labour EA as compared with analgesia on request.