» Articles » PMID: 23484038

At What Price? A Cost-effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour After Previous Caesarean Versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2013 Mar 14
PMID 23484038
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Elective repeat caesarean delivery (ERCD) rates have been increasing worldwide, thus prompting obstetric discourse on the risks and benefits for the mother and infant. Yet, these increasing rates also have major economic implications for the health care system. Given the dearth of information on the cost-effectiveness related to mode of delivery, the aim of this paper was to perform an economic evaluation on the costs and short-term maternal health consequences associated with a trial of labour after one previous caesarean delivery compared with ERCD for low risk women in Ireland.

Methods: Using a decision analytic model, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed where the measure of health gain was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a six-week time horizon. A review of international literature was conducted to derive representative estimates of adverse maternal health outcomes following a trial of labour after caesarean (TOLAC) and ERCD. Delivery/procedure costs derived from primary data collection and combined both "bottom-up" and "top-down" costing estimations.

Results: Maternal morbidities emerged in twice as many cases in the TOLAC group than the ERCD group. However, a TOLAC was found to be the most-effective method of delivery because it was substantially less expensive than ERCD (€ 1,835.06 versus € 4,039.87 per women, respectively), and QALYs were modestly higher (0.84 versus 0.70). Our findings were supported by probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions: Clinicians need to be well informed of the benefits and risks of TOLAC among low risk women. Ideally, clinician-patient discourse would address differences in length of hospital stay and postpartum recovery time. While it is premature advocate a policy of TOLAC across maternity units, the results of the study prompt further analysis and repeat iterations, encouraging future studies to synthesis previous research and new and relevant evidence under a single comprehensive decision model.

Citing Articles

Providers' perspective on vaginal birth after cesarean birth: a qualitative systematic review.

Kanjanakaew A, Jiramanee A, Srimoragot M BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024; 24(1):723.

PMID: 39506738 PMC: 11542202. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-024-06921-1.


Caesarean section and operative vaginal delivery in Estonia and Finland from 1992 to 2016: registry-based study.

Sildver K, Veerus P, Gissler M, Lang K, Pisarev H Eur J Public Health. 2024; 34(6):1205-1209.

PMID: 39435857 PMC: 11631386. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckae162.


Cost Analysis of Intranatal Care Services at a Tertiary Care Public Sector Hospital in Rajasthan, India.

Dhamania M, Gaur K, Pankaj J, Sharma D, Yadav R, Raj D Cureus. 2023; 15(6):e41090.

PMID: 37519522 PMC: 10378716. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41090.


Cost-effectiveness analysis of spontaneous vaginal delivery vs elective cesarean delivery for maternal outcomes in Colombia.

Sarmiento A, Ayala N, Rojas K, Pinilla-Roncancio M, Rodriguez N, Londono D AJOG Glob Rep. 2023; 3(3):100196.

PMID: 37415785 PMC: 10320247. DOI: 10.1016/j.xagr.2023.100196.


Safety Warning about Laparoscopic Power Morcellation in Hysterectomy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of National Impact.

Xu X, Desai V, Schwartz P, Gross C, Lin H, Schymura M Womens Health Rep (New Rochelle). 2022; 3(1):369-384.

PMID: 35415718 PMC: 8994439. DOI: 10.1089/whr.2021.0101.


References
1.
Bonanno C, Clausing M, Berkowitz R . VBAC: a medicolegal perspective. Clin Perinatol. 2011; 38(2):217-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.clp.2011.03.005. View

2.
Blanchette H, Blanchette M, McCabe J, Vincent S . Is vaginal birth after cesarean safe? Experience at a community hospital. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 184(7):1478-84; discussion 1484-7. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2001.114852. View

3.
Bost B . Cesarean delivery on demand: what will it cost?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188(6):1418-21; discussion 1421-3. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.455. View

4.
Rossi A, DAddario V . Maternal morbidity following a trial of labor after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review with metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(3):224-31. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.025. View

5.
Dekker G, Chan A, Luke C, Priest K, Riley M, Halliday J . Risk of uterine rupture in Australian women attempting vaginal birth after one prior caesarean section: a retrospective population-based cohort study. BJOG. 2010; 117(11):1358-65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02688.x. View