| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ORIGINAL RESEARCH |
From the Departments of Anesthesia and Gynecology and Obstetrics, and the Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Address reprint requests to: Alex Macario, MD, MBA Department of Anesthesia Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford, CA 94305-5640 E-mail: amaca{at}leland.stanford.edu
Objective: To determine the cost-effective method of delivery, from society’s perspective, in patients who have had a previous cesarean.
Methods: We completed an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a trial of labor relative to cesarean using a computerized model for a hypothetical 30-year old parturient. The model incorporated data from peer-reviewed studies, actual hospital costs, and utilities to quantify health-related quality of life. A threshold of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-years was used to define cost-effective.
Results: The model was most sensitive to the probability of successful vaginal delivery. If the probability of successful vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) was less than 0.65, elective repeat cesarean was both less costly and more effective than a trial of labor. Between 0.65 and 0.74, elective repeat cesarean was cost-effective (the cost-effectiveness ratio was less than $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-years), because, although it cost more than VBAC, it was offset by improved outcomes. Between 0.74 and 0.76, trial of labor was cost-effective. If the probability of successful vaginal delivery exceeded 0.76, trial of labor became less costly and more effective. Costs associated with a moderately morbid neonatal outcome, as well as the probabilities of infant morbidity occurring, heavily impacted our results.
Conclusion: The cost-effectiveness of VBAC depends on the likelihood of successful trial of labor. Our modeling suggests that a trial of labor is cost-effective if the probability of successful vaginal delivery is greater than 0.74. Improved algorithms are needed to more precisely estimate the likelihood that a patient with a previous cesarean will have a successful vaginal delivery.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  V. M. Allen, C. M. O'Connell, and T. F. Baskett Cumulative economic implications of initial method of delivery. Obstet. Gynecol., September 1, 2006; 108(3): 549 - 555. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Griebsch, J. Coast, and J. Brown Quality-Adjusted Life-Years Lack Quality in Pediatric Care: A Critical Review of Published Cost-Utility Studies in Child Health Pediatrics, May 1, 2005; 115(5): e600 - e614. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 Support for Elective C-Section Journal Watch Women's Health, July 9, 2003; 2003(709): 5 - 5. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Carbillon, M. Uzan, A. Batallan, E. Bujold, S. H. Mehta, and R. J. Gauthier Should We Allow a Trial of Labor After a Previous Cesarean for Dystocia in the Second Stage of Labor? Obstet. Gynecol., March 1, 2002; 99(3): 520 - 521. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
