Objective To assess the economic consequences of labour induction with Foley catheter compared to prostaglandin E2 gel. Design Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. Setting Obstetric departments of one university and 11 teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Population Women scheduled for labour induction with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation at term, intact membranes and an unfavourable cervix; and without previous caesarean section. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. Main outcome measures We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation to 6 weeks postpartum. For caesarean section rate, and maternal and neonatal morbidity we calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, which represent the costs to prevent one of these adverse outcomes. Results Mean costs per woman in the Foley catheter group (n = 411) and in the prostaglandin E2 gel group (n = 408), were €3297 versus €3075, respectively, with an average difference of €222 (95% confidence interval -€157 to €633). In the Foley catheter group we observed higher costs due to longer labour ward occupation and less cost related to induction material and neonatal admissions. Foley catheter induction showed a comparable caesarean section rate compared with prostaglandin induction, therefore the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not informative. Foley induction resulted in fewer neonatal admissions (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €2708) and asphyxia/postpartum haemorrhage (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios €5257) compared with prostaglandin induction. Conclusions Foley catheter and prostaglandin E 2 labour induction generate comparable costs.
|Number of pages||9|
|Journal||BJOG: an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Jul 2013|
- Foley catheter
- induction of labour
- randomised controlled trial