» Articles » PMID: 24041345

Lifetime Cost-effectiveness of Trial of Labor After Cesarean in the United States

Overview
Journal Value Health
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2013 Sep 18
PMID 24041345
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a trial of labor after one previous cesarean (TOLAC) when incorporating long-term events and outcomes.

Methods: A Markov model comparing TOLAC with elective repeat cesarean delivery (ERCD) was developed for a hypothetical cohort with no contraindication to a TOLAC. Women were selected from a prospective study to derive probability estimates for potential events through three subsequent pregnancies. Probabilities for cerebral palsy and stress urinary incontinence, cost data, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were obtained from the literature. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness measured as the marginal cost per QALY gained, with a $50,000 threshold per QALY used to define cost-effectiveness.

Results: The TOLAC strategy dominated the ERCD strategy at baseline, with $164.2 million saved and 500 QALYs gained per 100,000 women. The model was sensitive to six variables: the probability of uterine rupture and successful TOLAC among women with no prior vaginal delivery, the frequency of stress urinary incontinence, and the costs of failed TOLAC, successful TOLAC, and ERCD. When the probability of TOLAC success was at the base value, 67.2%, TOLAC was preferred if the probability of uterine rupture was 3.1% or less. When the probability of uterine rupture was at the base value, 0.8%, the TOLAC strategy was preferred as long as the probability of success was 47.2% or more. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed the base-case analysis.

Conclusions: Under baseline circumstances, TOLAC is less expensive and more effective than an ERCD when considering long-term consequences when the likelihood of success is 47.2% or more.

Citing Articles

A Systematic Review of Methods and Practice for Integrating Maternal, Fetal, and Child Health Outcomes, and Family Spillover Effects into Cost-Utility Analyses.

Lamsal R, Yeh E, Pullenayegum E, Ungar W Pharmacoeconomics. 2024; 42(8):843-863.

PMID: 38819718 PMC: 11249496. DOI: 10.1007/s40273-024-01397-5.


The impact of a trial of labor after cesarean versus elective repeat cesarean delivery: A meta-analysis.

Chen X, Mi M Medicine (Baltimore). 2024; 103(7):e37156.

PMID: 38363952 PMC: 10869045. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037156.


Predicting vaginal birth after previous cesarean: Using machine-learning models and a population-based cohort in Sweden.

Lindblad Wollmann C, Hart K, Liu C, Caughey A, Stephansson O, Snowden J Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020; 100(3):513-520.

PMID: 33031579 PMC: 8048592. DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14020.


Reasons for previous Cesarean deliveries impact a woman's independent decision of delivery mode and the success of trial of labor after Cesarean.

Uno K, Mayama M, Yoshihara M, Takeda T, Tano S, Suzuki T BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1):170.

PMID: 32204702 PMC: 7092517. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-2833-2.


Vaginal birth after caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery after one previous caesarean section: a cost-effectiveness analysis in four European countries.

Fobelets M, Beeckman K, Faron G, Daly D, Begley C, Putman K BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1):92.

PMID: 29642858 PMC: 5896042. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-018-1720-6.


References
1.
. Economic costs associated with mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing loss, and vision impairment--United States, 2003. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2004; 53(3):57-9. View

2.
Guise J, McDonagh M, Hashima J, Kraemer D, Eden K, Berlin M . Vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC). Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2003; (71):1-8. PMC: 4781528. View

3.
Fawsitt C, Bourke J, Greene R, Everard C, Murphy A, Lutomski J . At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery. PLoS One. 2013; 8(3):e58577. PMC: 3590223. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058577. View

4.
Simpson E, Lawrenson R, Nightingale A, Farmer R . Venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and the puerperium: incidence and additional risk factors from a London perinatal database. BJOG. 2001; 108(1):56-60. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00004.x. View

5.
Pare E, Quinones J, Macones G . Vaginal birth after caesarean section versus elective repeat caesarean section: assessment of maternal downstream health outcomes. BJOG. 2006; 113(1):75-85. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00793.x. View