N Hyldig1,2,3, J S Joergensen2, C Wu2, C Bille1, C A Vinter2, J A Sorensen1, O Mogensen4, R F Lamont2,5, S Möller3,6, M Kruse7. 1. Department of Plastic Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 2. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Odense University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 3. OPEN Odense Patient data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 4. Division of Pelvic Cancer, Karolinska University Hospital, and the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Division of Surgery, University College London, London, UK. 6. Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 7. Department of Public Health, Danish Centre for Health Economics (DaCHE), University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) in preventing surgical site infection in obese women after caesarean section. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a clinical trial. SETTING: Five obstetric departments in Denmark. POPULATION: Women with a pregestational body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 . METHOD: We used data from a randomised controlled trial of 876 obese women who underwent elective or emergency caesarean section and were subsequently treated with iNPWT (n = 432) or a standard dressing (n = 444). Costs were estimated using data from four Danish National Databases and analysed from a healthcare perspective with a time horizon of 3 months after birth. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost per surgical site infection avoided and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The total healthcare costs per woman were €5793.60 for iNPWT and €5840.89 for standard dressings. Incisional NPWT was the dominant strategy because it was both less expensive and more effective; however, no statistically significant difference was found for costs or QALYs. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 92.8%. A subgroup analysis stratifying by BMI shows that the cost saving of the intervention was mainly driven by the benefit to women with a pre-pregnancy BMI ≥35 kg/m2 . CONCLUSION: Incisional NPWT appears to be cost saving compared with standard dressings but this finding is not statistically significant. The cost savings were primarily found in women with a pre-pregnancy BMI ≥35 kg/m2 . TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prophylactic incisional NPWT reduces the risk of SSI after caesarean section and is probably dominant compared with standard dressings #healtheconomics.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of incisional negative pressure wound therapy (iNPWT) in preventing surgical site infection in obese women after caesarean section. DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis conducted alongside a clinical trial. SETTING: Five obstetric departments in Denmark. POPULATION: Women with a pregestational body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m2 . METHOD: We used data from a randomised controlled trial of 876 obese women who underwent elective or emergency caesarean section and were subsequently treated with iNPWT (n = 432) or a standard dressing (n = 444). Costs were estimated using data from four Danish National Databases and analysed from a healthcare perspective with a time horizon of 3 months after birth. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-effectiveness based on incremental cost per surgical site infection avoided and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: The total healthcare costs per woman were €5793.60 for iNPWT and €5840.89 for standard dressings. Incisional NPWT was the dominant strategy because it was both less expensive and more effective; however, no statistically significant difference was found for costs or QALYs. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of €30,000, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 92.8%. A subgroup analysis stratifying by BMI shows that the cost saving of the intervention was mainly driven by the benefit to women with a pre-pregnancy BMI ≥35 kg/m2 . CONCLUSION: Incisional NPWT appears to be cost saving compared with standard dressings but this finding is not statistically significant. The cost savings were primarily found in women with a pre-pregnancy BMI ≥35 kg/m2 . TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prophylactic incisional NPWT reduces the risk of SSI after caesarean section and is probably dominant compared with standard dressings #healtheconomics.
Authors: Gill Norman; Chunhu Shi; En Lin Goh; Elizabeth Ma Murphy; Adam Reid; Laura Chiverton; Monica Stankiewicz; Jo C Dumville Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-04-26
Authors: Gill Norman; En Lin Goh; Jo C Dumville; Chunhu Shi; Zhenmi Liu; Laura Chiverton; Monica Stankiewicz; Adam Reid Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-05-01
Authors: Brigid M Gillespie; Joan Webster; David Ellwood; Lukman Thalib; Jennifer A Whitty; Kassam Mahomed; Vicki Clifton; Sailesh Kumar; Adam Wagner; Evelyn Kang; Wendy Chaboyer Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-05-05
Authors: Methodius G Tuuli; Jingxia Liu; Alan T N Tita; Sherri Longo; Amanda Trudell; Ebony B Carter; Anthony Shanks; Candice Woolfolk; Aaron B Caughey; David K Warren; Anthony O Odibo; Graham Colditz; George A Macones; Lorie Harper Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Harshini Sarojini; Alexander Bajorek; Rong Wan; Jianpu Wang; Qunwei Zhang; Adrian T Billeter; Sufan Chien Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Gill Norman; En Lin Goh; Jo C Dumville; Chunhu Shi; Zhenmi Liu; Laura Chiverton; Monica Stankiewicz; Adam Reid Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-06-15