Search

Background: Around one in three pregnant women undergoes induction of labour in the United Kingdom, usually preceded by in-hospital cervical ripening to soften and open the cervix., Objectives: This study set out to determine whether cervical ripening at home is within an acceptable safety margin of cervical ripening in hospital, is effective, acceptable and cost-effective from both National Health Service and service user perspectives., Design: The CHOICE study comprised a prospective multicentre observational cohort study using routinely collected data (CHOICE cohort), a process evaluation comprising a survey and nested case studies (qCHOICE) and a cost-effectiveness analysis. The CHOICE cohort set out to compare outcomes of cervical ripening using dinoprostone (a prostaglandin) at home with in-hospital cervical ripening from 39 weeks of gestation. Electronic maternity record data were collected from 26 maternity units. Following pilot analysis, the primary comparison was changed to ensure feasibility and to reflect current practice, comparing home cervical ripening using a balloon catheter with in-hospital cervical ripening using any prostaglandin from 37 weeks of gestation. Analysis involved multiple logistic regression for the primary outcome and descriptive statistics for all other outcomes. The qCHOICE study reported descriptive statistics of quantitative survey data and thematic analysis of focus group and interview data. The economic analysis involved a decision-analytic model from a National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, populated with CHOICE cohort and published data. Secondary analysis explored the patient perspective utilising cost estimates from qCHOICE data., Setting: Twenty-six United Kingdom maternity units., Participants: Women with singleton pregnancies at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation having induction with details of cervical ripening method and location recorded., Main Outcome Measures: Neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth for 48 hours or more., Qchoice: Maternal and staff experience of cervical ripening., Economic Analysis: Incremental cost per neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth avoided., Data Sources: Electronic maternity records from 26 maternity units; survey and interviews with service users/maternity staff; focus groups with maternity staff; published literature on economic aspects., Results: CHOICE cohort: A total of 515 women underwent balloon cervical ripening at home and 4332 underwent in-hospital cervical ripening using prostaglandin in hospitals that did not offer home cervical ripening. Neonatal unit admission within 48 hours of birth for 48 hours or more following home cervical ripening with balloon was not increased compared with in-hospital cervical ripening with prostaglandin. However, there was substantial uncertainty with the adjusted analysis consistent with a 74% decrease in the risk through to an 81% increase., Qchoice: Important aspects of service users' experience of home cervical ripening were quality of information provided, support and perception of genuine choice., Economic Analysis: Home cervical ripening with balloon led to cost savings of £993 (-£1198, -£783) per woman and can be considered the dominant strategy., Limitations: Circumstances relating to the COVID-19 pandemic limited the number of participating maternity units and the duration for which units participated. Low numbers of women having at-home cervical ripening limited the power to detect differences in safety, effectiveness, cost and acceptability between study groups., Conclusions: Home cervical ripening using balloon catheter may be as safe for babies as using prostaglandins in hospital in low and moderate-risk groups, but there is substantial uncertainty. Home cervical ripening with balloon is likely to be cost saving. Impacts on workload, service user and staff experiences were complex., Future Work: Future research should focus on optimising experience and logistics of home cervical ripening within busy maternity services., Study Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN32652461., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127569) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 81. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Objective: We sought to evaluate the economic benefit of the induction of labor compared with elective cesarean delivery in individuals with supermorbid obesity (body mass index 60 kg/m 2 or greater) at term., Study Design: We developed an economic analysis model to compare induction of labor with elective cesarean delivery in nulliparous individuals with supermorbid obesity at term. The primary outcome was the total cost per strategy from a health system perspective with elective cesarean delivery as a reference group. Pregnancy outcomes for the index and subsequent pregnancies were considered. When available, probabilities of pregnancy outcomes were extracted from our institutions. Rare pregnancy outcomes, relative risks, and costs were derived from the literature. All costs in this analysis were inflated to 2022 USD (U.S. dollar). To determine the robustness of the decision model, we conducted one-way sensitivity analyses by changing point estimates of variables. We then performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation repeating 1,000 times to test the robustness of the results in the setting of simultaneous changes in probabilities, relative risks, and costs., Results: In the base-case analysis, assuming that 72.7% of nulliparous individuals undergoing induction of labor would have a cesarean delivery, induction of labor would cost $41,084 compared with $40,742 for elective cesarean delivery, resulting in a higher cost of $342 per nulliparous individuals with supermorbid obesity. In a sensitivity analysis, we found that induction of labor compared with elective cesarean is less economical if the probability of cesarean delivery after induction of labor exceeds 71%. Monte Carlo simulation suggests that elective cesarean delivery was the preferred cost-beneficial strategy with a frequency of 53.5%., Conclusion: Among our patient population, induction of labor was less economical compared with elective cesarean delivery at term for nulliparous individuals with supermorbid obesity., Key Points: · The prevalence of obesity in the United States continues to rise.. · Morbid obesity compared with normal weight is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes.. · Induction of labor was less economical compared with elective cesarean delivery at term for nulliparous individuals.., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: In the context of the rising rate of diabetes in pregnancy in Australia, this study aims to examine the health service and resource use associated with diabetes during pregnancy., Methods and Results: This project utilised a linked administrative dataset containing health and cost data for all mothers who gave birth in Queensland, Australia between 2012 and 2015 (n = 186,789, plus their babies, n = 189,909). The association between maternal characteristics and diabetes status were compared with chi-square analyses. Multiple logistic regression produced the odds ratio of having different outcomes for women who had diabetes compared to women who did not. A two-sample t-test compared the mean number of health services accessed. Generalised linear regression produced the mean costs associated with health service use. Mothers who had diabetes during pregnancy were more likely to have their labour induced at <38 weeks gestation (OR:1.39, 95% CI:1.29-1.50); have a cesarean section (OR: 1.26, 95% CI:1.22-1.31); have a preterm birth (OR:1.24, 95%: 1.18-1.32); have their baby admitted to a Special Care Nursery (OR: 2.34, 95% CI:2.26-2.43) and a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (OR:1.25, 95%CI: 1.14-1.37). On average, mothers with diabetes access health services on more occasions during pregnancy (54.4) compared to mothers without (50.5). Total government expenditure on mothers with diabetes over the first 1000 days of the perinatal journey was significantly higher than in mothers without diabetes ($12,757 and $11,332)., Conclusion: Overall, mothers that have diabetes in pregnancy require greater health care and resource use than mothers without diabetes in pregnancy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2021 The Italian Diabetes Society, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis, the Italian Society of Human Nutrition and the Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Preeclampsia is a serious complication of pregnancy that occurs in approximately 2.3% of all pregnancies in Switzerland. The aim of this study was to determine inpatient costs based on actual services in suspected and confirmed cases of preeclampsia in two Swiss hospitals (University Hospital Basel, Lucerne Cantonal Hospital) for the year 2016. Methods: Costs for patients with suspected or diagnosed preeclampsia were determined based on the databases of the finance and controlling departments. The cases were identified according to ICD-10 codes and were divided into three main categories: (1) patients with suspected preeclampsia who were discharged without delivering; (2) patients with diagnosed preeclampsia followed by vaginal induction; (3) patients with diagnosed preeclampsia followed by cesarean delivery. Results: A total of 301 cases were included in the analysis, of which 36 (12%) were hospitalized with suspected preeclampsia and discharged after a few days without delivering. Costs for cases of suspected preeclampsia were the lowest, averaging CHF 7,159/EUR 6,658 (95% CI: CHF 5,361/EUR 4,986; CHF 8,958/EUR 8,331), followed by CHF 12,124/EUR 11,275 (95% CI: CHF 10,401/EUR 9,673; CHF 13,950/EUR 12,974) for cases of preeclampsia with vaginal delivery, and CHF 19,352/EUR 17,997 (95% CI: CHF 17,342/EUR 16,128; CHF 21,507/EUR 20,002) for preeclampsia with cesarean section. Overall medical costs were CHF 4.7 (EUR 4.4) million. In all patient groups, the actual patient costs exceeded the DRG revenue that inpatient care providers receive from payers for providing services. The budget deficit was seen in both hospitals, although the magnitude of the deficit was different. Limitation and conclusion: This is the first study to analyze costs for preeclampsia in Switzerland. It would be desirable if this cost analysis was to be performed in other hospitals in order to achieve greater representativity for Switzerland.

Objective: To compare hospitalization costs of pregnancies managed by elective induction of labor to those with spontaneous labor in a large cohort of pregnant women., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of women with singleton, nonanomalous births in California from 2007 to 2011. We excluded women with placenta previa, breech presentation, prior cesarean delivery, planned cesarean delivery, medically indicated induction of labor, gestational age less than 37 weeks or at or greater than 41 weeks, and stillbirths. We adjusted hospital charges using a cost-to-charge ratio and costs included hospitalization costs for admission for delivery only. We estimated the difference in costs between elective induction of labor (resulting in a vaginal or cesarean delivery) and spontaneous labor for both women and neonates, stratified by mode of delivery, parity, gestational age at delivery and geographic location. We conducted analyses using Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank tests with a significance level of 0.05., Results: In a California cohort of 1,278,151 women, 190,409 (15%) had an elective induction of labor. Median maternal hospitalization costs were $10,175 (interquartile range: $7,284-$14,144) with induction of labor and $9,462 (interquartile range: $6,667-$13,251) with spontaneous labor (P<.01) for women who had a vaginal delivery, and $20,294 (interquartile range: $15,367-$26,920) with induction of labor and $18,812 (interquartile range: $13,580-$25,197) with spontaneous labor (P<.01) for women who had a cesarean delivery. Maternal median hospitalization costs were significantly higher in the setting of elective induction of labor regardless of parity, mode of delivery, and gestational age at delivery. Alternatively, median hospitalization costs for neonates of women who had an elective induction of labor were significantly lower., Conclusion: Further research regarding approaches to induction of labor is necessary to determine whether strategies to reduce health care costs without affecting or even improving outcomes could help curb costs associated with induction of labor.

Objective: To compare the actual health-system cost of elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation with expectant management., Methods: This was an economic analysis of patients enrolled in the five Utah hospitals participating in a multicenter randomized trial of elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation compared with expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. The entire trial enrolled more than 6,000 patients. For this subset, 1,201 had cost data available. The primary outcome was relative direct health care costs of maternal and neonatal care from a health system perspective. Secondary outcomes included the costs of each phase of maternal and neonatal care. Direct health system costs of maternal and neonatal care were measured using advanced costing analytics from the time of randomization at 38 weeks of gestation until exit from the study up to 8 weeks postpartum. Costs in each randomization arm were compared using generalized linear models and reported as the relative cost of induction compared with expectant management. With a fixed sample size, we had adequate power to detect a 7.3% or greater difference in overall costs., Results: The total cost of elective induction was no different than expectant management (mean difference +4.7%; 95% CI -2.1% to +12.0%; P=.18). Maternal outpatient antenatal care costs were 47.0% lower in the induction arm (95% CI -58.3% to -32.6%; P<.001). Maternal inpatient intrapartum and delivery care costs, conversely, were 16.9% higher among women undergoing labor induction (95% CI +5.5% to +29.5%; P=.003). Maternal inpatient postpartum care, maternal outpatient care after discharge, neonatal hospital care, and neonatal care after discharge did not differ between arms., Conclusion: Total costs of elective labor induction and expectant management did not differ significantly. These results challenge the assumption that elective induction of labor leads to significant cost escalation.

Elective induction of labor is defined as labor induction in the absence of a clear medical indication. Whether elective labor induction at 39 weeks is a reasonable option for obstetric practice has been a hotly debated topic for decades. Historically, labor induction in low-risk nulliparous women has been discouraged due to the belief that this intervention increases the risk for cesarean delivery without a clear benefit. This review discusses the observational and randomized data that have informed this debate, focusing on recent studies that have reshaped how we think about elective labor induction at 39 weeks of gestation., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate cost of outpatient (OP) versus inpatient (IP) ripening with transcervical balloons, and determine circumstances in which each strategy would be cost saving., Study Design: We created a decision model comparing OP and IP balloon ripening in term (≥37 weeks) singleton pregnancies with unfavorable cervix. We performed a cost-minimization analysis and threshold analyses comparing two OP ripening strategies (broad and limited use) to IP ripening from a health system perspective. Base case estimates of probability, utilization, and cost were derived from the literature. The primary outcome was incremental cost of OP versus IP ripening from a hospital perspective. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses explored uncertainty in the model., Results: Both OP ripening strategies were cost saving compared with IP ripening: incremental cost -$228.40/patient with broad use and -$73.48/patient with limited use. OP ripening was no longer cost saving if hours saved on labor and delivery (L&D) were <3.5, insertion visit cost >$714, or facility cost/hour on L&D <$61. Two-way sensitivity analyses showed that OP ripening was cost saving under the most plausible clinical circumstances., Conclusion: In patients with unfavorable cervix, OP transcervical balloon ripening was cost saving under a wide range of circumstances, particularly if OP ripening can shorten time spent on L&D by 3.5 hours., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Background: Clinical interventions known to reduce the risk of caesarean delivery include routine induction of labour at 39 weeks, caseload midwifery and chart audit, but they have not been compared for cost-effectiveness., Objective: To assesses the cost-effectiveness of three different interventions known to reduce caesarean delivery rates compared to standard care; and conduct a budget impact analysis., Methods: A Markov microsimulation model was constructed to compare the costs and outcomes produced by the different interventions. Costs included all costs to the health system, and outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. A budget impact analysis was undertaken using this model to quantify the costs (in Australian dollars) over three years for government health system funders., Results: All interventions, plus standard care, produced similar health outcomes (mean of 1.84 QALYs gained over 105 weeks). Caseload midwifery was the lowest cost option at $15 587 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15 269, 15 905), followed by routine induction of labour ($16 257, 95% CI 15 989, 16 536), and chart audit ($16 325, 95% CI 15 979, 16 671). All produced lower costs on average than standard care ($16 905, 95% CI 16 551, 17 259). Caseload midwifery would produce the greatest savings of $172.6 million over three years if implemented for all low-risk nulliparous women in Australia., Conclusions: Caseload midwifery presents the best value for reducing caesarean delivery rates of the options considered. Routine induction of labour at 39 weeks and chart audit would also reduce costs compared to standard care., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: A large, recent multicenter trial found that induction of labor at 39 weeks for low-risk nulliparous women was not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery or adverse neonatal outcomes., Objective: We sought to examine the cost-effectiveness and outcomes associated with induction of labor at 39 weeks vs expectant management for low-risk nulliparous women in the United States., Study Design: A cost-effectiveness model using TreeAge software was designed to compare outcomes in women who were induced at 39 weeks vs expectantly managed. We used a theoretical cohort of 1.6 million women, the approximate number of nulliparous term births in the United States annually that are considered low risk. Outcomes included mode of delivery, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, macrosomia, stillbirth, permanent brachial plexus injury, and neonatal death, in addition to cost and quality-adjusted life years for both the woman and neonate. Model inputs were derived from the literature, and a cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000/quality-adjusted life years., Results: In our theoretical cohort of 1.6 million women, induction of labor resulted in 54,498 fewer cesarean deliveries and 79,152 fewer cases of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. We also found that induction of labor resulted in 795 fewer cases of stillbirth and 11 fewer neonatal deaths, despite 86 additional cases of brachial plexus injury. Induction of labor resulted in increased costs but increased quality-adjusted life years with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $87,691.91 per quality-adjusted life year. In sensitivity analysis, if the cost of induction of labor was increased by $180, elective induction would no longer be cost effective. Similarly, we found that if the rate of cesarean delivery was the same in both strategies, elective induction of labor at 39 weeks would not be a cost-effective strategy. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis via Monte Carlo simulation, we found that induction of labor was cost effective only 65% of the time., Conclusion: In our theoretical cohort, induction of labor in nulliparous term women at 39 weeks of gestation resulted in improved outcomes but increased costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was marginally cost effective but would lead to an additional 2 billion dollars of healthcare costs. Whether individual clinicians and healthcare systems offer routine induction of labor at 39 weeks will need to depend on local capacity, careful evaluation and allocation of healthcare resources, and patient preferences. KEY WORDS: cesarean delivery, decision analysis, healthcare resources, induction of labor, low-risk nulliparous women, mode of delivery, obstetric outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the costs, complication rates, and harm-benefit tradeoffs of induction of labor (IOL) compared to scheduled cesarean delivery (CD) in women with class III obesity., Study Design: We conducted a cost analysis of IOL versus scheduled CD in nulliparous morbidly obese women. Primary outcomes were surgical site infection (SSI), chorioamnionitis, venous thromboembolism, blood transfusion, and readmission. Model outcomes were mean cost of each strategy, cost per complication avoided, and complication tradeoffs. We assessed the costs, complication rates, and harm-benefit tradeoffs of IOL compared with scheduled CD in women with class III obesity., Results: A total of 110 patients underwent scheduled CD and 114 underwent IOL, of whom 61 (54%) delivered via cesarean. The group delivering vaginally experienced fewer complications. SSI occurred in 0% in the vaginal delivery group, 13% following scheduled cesarean, and 16% following induction then cesarean. In the decision model, the mean cost of induction was $13,349 compared with $14,575 for scheduled CD. Scheduled CD costs $9,699 per case of chorioamnionitis avoided, resulted in 18 cases of chorioamnionitis avoided per additional SSI and 3 cases of chorioamnionitis avoided per additional hospital readmission. In sensitivity analysis, IOL is cost saving compared with scheduled CD unless the cesarean rate following induction exceeds 70%., Conclusion: In morbidly obese women, induction of labor remains cost-saving until the rate of cesarean following induction exceeds 70%., Competing Interests: None., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Objective: To determine the effectiveness and economic impact of two methods for induction of labour in hypertensive women, in low-resource settings., Design: Cost-consequence analysis of a previously reported multicentre, parallel, open-label randomised trial., Setting & Population: A total of 602 women with a live fetus, aged ≥18 years requiring delivery for pre-eclampsia or hypertension, in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India., Methods: We performed a formal economic evaluation alongside the INFORM clinical trial. Women were randomised to receive transcervical Foley catheterisation or oral misoprostol 25 mcg. Healthcare expenditure was calculated using a provider-side microcosting approach., Main Outcome Measures: Rates of vaginal this delivery within 24 hours of induction, healthcare expenditure per completed treatment episode., Results: Induction with oral misoprostol resulted in a (mean difference) $20.6USD reduction in healthcare expenditure [95% CI (-) $123.59 (-) $72.49], and improved achievement of vaginal delivery within 24 hours of induction, mean difference 10% [95% CI (-2 to 17.9%), P = 0.016]. Oxytocin administration time was reduced by 135.3 minutes [95% CI (84.4-186.2 minutes), P < 0.01] and caesarean sections by 9.1% [95% CI (1.1-17%), P = 0.025] for those receiving oral misoprostol. Following probabilistic sensitivity analysis, oral misoprostol was cost-saving in 63% of 5,000 bootstrap replications and achieved superior rates of vaginal delivery, delivery within 24 hours of induction and vaginal delivery within 24 hours of induction in 98.7%, 90.7%, and 99.4% of bootstrap simulations. Based on univariate threshold analysis, the unit price of oral misoprostol 25 mcg could feasibly increase 31-fold from $0.24 to $7.50 per 25 mcg tablet and remain cost-saving., Conclusion: Compared to Foley catheterisation for the induction of high-risk hypertensive women, oral misoprostol improves rates of vaginal delivery within 24 hours of induction and may also reduce costs. Additional research performed in other low-resource settings is required to determine their relative cost-effectiveness., Tweetable Abstract: Oral misoprostol less costly and more effective than Foley catheter for labour induction in hypertension., (© 2018 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of single balloon catheter with double balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening and labor induction on unfavourable cervix., Methods: this is a comparative, retrospective, one-center trial. Were included singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation. Were excluded cicatricial uterus. The outcomes were vaginal delivery rate, caesarean section rate, modification in Bishop score, time from induction to delivery, second time prostaglandin E2 resort, oxytocin administration resort, maternal or neonatal adverse events., Results: Were included 108 patients: 45 in single balloon catheter group, 32 in double balloon catheter group, 31 in dinoprostone insert group. Vaginal delivery rate was similar in single balloon catheter group (78 %) compared with others groups (75 % in double balloon catheter and 71 % in dinoprostone insert group respectively). Oxytocin administration resort was superior in single balloon catheter group. There was no significant difference on others outcomes. Labor induction costs were 9euros in single balloon catheter group, versus 55 and 81 euros in double balloon catheter group and dinoprostone insert group respectively., Conclusions: Single balloon catheter seems just as effective as double balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert with its major asset the low cost for labor induction., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the impact on stillbirth risk, cesarean deliveries, and delivery-related healthcare cost associated with induction of labor compared to expectant management of term pregnancies in an obese population., Methods: A decision analysis model was designed to compare the delivery and cost outcomes associated with a hypothetical cohort of 100,000 term pregnancies, complicated by obesity, that were planning a vaginal delivery. The model predicted stillbirths, cesarean deliveries, and total delivery-related health care cost from routine induction at 39 weeks compared to expectant management and routine induction each week from 40 to 42 weeks., Results: There were 387 stillbirths avoided by routine induction at 39 weeks compared to the worst-case model of expectant management with induction at 42 weeks. 9234 cesarean deliveries were avoided by routine induction at 39 weeks compared to the worst-case model of expectant management and induction at 41 weeks (30,888 vs. 40,122) . Routine induction at 39 weeks showed a savings in delivery-related health care cost of 30 million dollars compared to the worst-case model of expectant management and induction at 41 weeks (536 million vs. 566 million)., Conclusion: Utilizing this computational model, routine induction at 39 weeks minimizes stillbirths, cesarean deliveries, and delivery-related health care cost.

Objective: To evaluate the costs associated with induction of labour in intrauterine growth restriction fetuses comparing different procedures., Study Design: 150 pregnancies at term diagnosed with intrauterine growth restriction and indication for induction of labour were included. 24 were ripened with misoprostol 25 μg tablets, 24 with dinoprostone 10 mg vaginal insert, and 77 with Cook ® cervical ripening balloon. To determine the costs of induction of labour, method of induction, intrapartum medication, epidural analgesia, type of delivery, and maternal and neonatal admissions were considered. Statistical analysis was performed using the G-Stat 2.0 free statistical software. ANOVA test was used for comparisons between quantitative parametric variables. Chi-squared test or Fisher test was used for qualitative variables. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant., Results: Up to 70.83% women in dinoprostone group gave birth within the first 24 h compared to 42.66% in misoprostol group and 36.36% in CG (p < 0.01). Misoprostol tablets were cheaper (9.45 ± 1.52 US dollars) than dinoprostone or Cook ® balloon (41.67 ± 0 and 59.85 ± 0 54.45 ± 0 US dollars, respectively) (p < 0.01). Costs related to maternal admissions were higher in CG (475.13 ± 146.95$) than dinoprostone group (475.13 ± 146.95$) or MG (427.97 ± 112.65$) (p = 0.03). Total costs in misoprostol group (2765.18 ± 495.38$) were lower than in the dinoprostone group (3075.774 ± 896.14$) or Cook ® balloon group (3228.02 ± 902.06$) groups., Conclusions: Misoprostol for induction of labour had lower related costs than dinoprostone or Cook ® balloon, with similar obstetrical and perinatal outcomes.

Background: Between 62 000 and 77 000 women die annually from pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Prompt delivery, preferably by the vaginal route, is vital for good maternal and neonatal outcomes. Two low-cost interventions-low-dose oral misoprostol tablets and transcervical Foley catheterisation-are already used in low-resource settings. We aimed to compare the relative risks and benefits of these interventions., Methods: We undertook this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in two public hospitals in Nagpur, India. Women (aged ≥18 years) who were at 20 weeks' gestation or later with a live fetus and required delivery as a result of pre-eclampsia or hypertension were randomly assigned (1:1), via computer-generated block randomisation (block sizes of four, six, and eight) with concealment by use of opaque, sequentially numbered, sealed envelopes, to receive labour induction with either oral misoprostol 25 μg every 2 h (maximum of 12 doses) or a transcervical Foley catheter (silicone, size 18 F with 30 mL balloon). Randomisation was stratified by study centre. The catheter remained in place until active labour started, the catheter fell out, or 12 h had elapsed. If the catheter did not fall out within 12 h, induction continued with artificial membrane rupture and oxytocin, administered through a micro-drip gravity infusion set. Fetal monitoring was by intermittent auscultation. The primary outcome was vaginal birth within 24 h. Due to the nature of the interventions, masking of participants, study investigators, and care providers to group allocation was not possible. We analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01801410., Findings: Between Dec 20, 2013, and June 29, 2015, we randomly assigned 602 women to induction with misoprostol (n=302) or the Foley catheter (n=300; intention-to-treat population). Vaginal birth within 24 h was more common in women in the misoprostol group than in the Foley catheter group (172 [57·0%] vs 141 [47·0%] women; absolute risk difference 10·0%, 95% CI 2·0-17·9; p=0·0136). Rates of uterine hyperstimulation were low in both the misoprostol and Foley catheter groups (two [0·7%] vs one [0·3%] cases; absolute risk difference 0·3%, 95% CI -0·8 to 1·5; p=0·566) and neonatal deaths did not differ significantly between groups (six [2·0%] vs three [1·0%] neonatal deaths; 1·0, -1·04 to 2·97; p=0·322). 17 serious adverse events (3%) were reported during the study: one case of intrapartum convulsion and one case of disseminated intravascular coagulation (both in the Foley group); ten perinatal deaths, including two stillbirths (both in the Foley catheter group) and eight neonatal deaths (n=5 in the misoprostol group and n=3 in the Foley catheter group); and five of neonatal morbidity, comprising birth asphyxia (n=3), septicaemia (n=1), and neonatal convulsion (n=1)., Interpretation: Oral misoprostol was more effective than transcervical Foley catheterisation for induction of labour in women with pre-eclampsia or hypertension. Future studies are required to assess whether oxytocin augmentation following misoprostol can be replaced by regular doses of oral misoprostol tablets., Funding: Medical Research Council, Department for International Development, and Wellcome Trust Joint Global Health Trials Scheme., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We aimed to predict the perinatal outcomes and costs of health services following labour induction for late-term pregnancies., Materials and Methods: We conducted a cohort study of 245 women who underwent labour induction during their 41st week of gestation. The cervical condition was assessed upon admission using the Bishop score and ultrasound cervical length measurements. We estimated the direct costs of labour induction, and a predictive model for perinatal outcomes was constructed using the decision tree analysis algorithm and a logit model., Results: A very unfavourable Bishop score at admission (Bishop score <2) (OR, 3.43 [95% CI, 1.77-6.59]), and a history of previous caesarean section (OR, 7.72 [95% CI, 2.43-24.43]) or previous vaginal delivery (OR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.09-0.58]) were the only variables with predictive capacity for caesarean section in our model. The mean cost of labour induction was €3465.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3339.53-3591.58). Unfavourable Bishop scores upon admission and no history of previous deliveries significantly increased the cost of labour induction. Both of these criteria significantly predicted the likelihood of a caesarean section in the decision tree analysis., Conclusion: The cost of labour induction mostly depends on the likelihood of successful trial of labour. Combined use of the Bishop score and previous vaginal or caesarean deliveries improves the ability to predict the likelihood of a caesarean section and the economic costs associated with labour induction for late-term pregnancies. This information is useful for patient counselling., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: Induction of labour at 39 weeks for nulliparous women aged 35 years and over may prevent stillbirths and does not increase caesarean births, so it may be popular. But the overall costs and benefits of such a policy have not been compared., Design: A cost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (the 35/39 trial)., Setting: Obstetric departments of 38 UK National Health Service hospitals and one UK primary-care trust., Population: Nulliparous women aged 35 years or over on their expected due date, with a singleton live fetus in a cephalic presentation., Methods: Costs were estimated from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated based on patient responses to the EQ-5D at baseline and 4 weeks., Main Outcome Measures: Data on antenatal care, mode of delivery, analgesia in labour, method of induction, EQ-5D (baseline and 4 weeks postnatal) and participant-administered postnatal health resource use data were collected., Results: The intervention was associated with a mean cost saving of £263 and a small additional gain in QALYs (though this was not statistically significant), even without considering any possible QALY gains from stillbirth prevention., Conclusion: A policy of induction of labour at 39 weeks for women of advanced maternal age would save money., Tweetable Abstract: A policy of induction of labour at 39 weeks of gestation for women of advanced maternal age would save money., (© 2017 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: This study is an economic evaluation of immediate birth compared with expectant management in women with preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes near term (PPROMT)., Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the PPROMT randomised controlled trial., Setting: Obstetric departments in 65 hospitals across 11 countries., Population: Women with a singleton pregnancy with ruptured membranes between 34 +0 and 36 +6 weeks gestation., Methods: Women were randomly allocated to immediate birth or expectant management. Costs to the health system were identified and valued. National hospital costing data from both the UK and Australia were used. Average cost per recruit in each arm was calculated and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using bootstrap re-sampling. Averages costs during antenatal care, delivery and postnatal care, and by country were estimated., Main Outcomes Measures: Total mean cost difference between immediate birth and expectant management arms of the trial., Results: From 11 countries 923 women were randomised to immediate birth and 912 were randomised to expectant management. Total mean costs per recruit were £8852 for immediate birth and £8740 for expectant delivery resulting in a mean difference in costs of £112 (95% CI: -431 to 662). The expectant management arm had significantly higher antenatal costs, whereas the immediate birth arm had significantly higher delivery and neonatal costs. There was large variation between total mean costs by country., Conclusion: This economic evaluation found no evidence that expectant management was more or less costly than immediate birth. Outpatient management may offer opportunities for cost savings for those women with delayed delivery., Tweetable Abstract: For women with preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes, the relative benefits and harms of immediate and expectant management should inform counselling as costs are similar., (© 2016 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: To assess the economic consequences of immediate delivery compared with expectant monitoring in women with preterm non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy., Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (HYPITAT-II)., Setting: Obstetric departments of seven academic hospitals and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands., Population: Women diagnosed with non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 0/7 and 37 0/7  weeks of gestation, randomly allocated to either immediate delivery or expectant monitoring., Methods: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective until final maternal and neonatal discharge., Main Outcome Measures: Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of respiratory distress syndrome, defined as the need for supplemental oxygen for >24 hours combined with radiographic findings typical for respiratory distress syndrome. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective until maternal and neonatal discharge., Results: The average costs of immediate delivery (n = 352) were €10 245 versus €9563 for expectant monitoring (n = 351), with an average difference of €682 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI -€618 to €2126). This 7% difference predominantly originated from the neonatal admissions, which were €5672 in the immediate delivery arm and €3929 in the expectant monitoring arm., Conclusion: In women with mild hypertensive disorders between 34 0/7 and 37 0/7  weeks of gestation, immediate delivery is more costly than expectant monitoring as a result of differences in neonatal admissions. These findings support expectant monitoring, as the clinical outcomes of the trial demonstrated that expectant monitoring reduced respiratory distress syndrome for a slightly increased risk of maternal complications., Tweetable Abstract: Expectant management in preterm hypertensive disorders is less costly compared with immediate delivery., (© 2016 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare resource utilization (efficiency) and obstetrical/cost outcomes of single dose misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor (IOL) at term., Methods: Retrospective cohort of induced deliveries 37-41 weeks gestation presenting with a Bishop score ≤4 using single-dose-50 mcg vaginal misoprostol or 10 mg-dinoprostone vaginal-inserts. Dinoprostone patients were compared (5:1) with misoprostol patients. The primary outcome variable was length of L&D stay (proxy for resource utilization). Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and costs were compared., Results: Three-hundred thirty-one patients were included, 276 received dinoprostone and 55 received misoprostol. The misoprostol group had statistically significant decreased time to active labor [median 8 h (1.6,24) versus 12(0.8,52)], time-to-delivery [median 11 h (4,31) versus 17(2.8,56)] and L&D stay [median 16 h (13,28) versus 24(18,30)]. Differences remained significant after adjustment for race, method of delivery, birth weight, gravidity/parity, gestational age, and BMI (adjusted p values <0.001,  <0.01, and < 0.05, respectively). There were no statistical differences in Apgar scores, tachysystole rate, cesarean section rate, and composite maternal/neonatal morbidity. A policy of using misoprostol would result in annual cost savings of approximately $242 500 at our institution as compared with dinoprostone., Conclusion: Single-dose misoprostol is more efficient in IOL at term with respect to L&D utilization and cost and its use is not associated with increased adverse obstetrical outcomes.

Objective: To compare the costs between planned cesarean delivery (CD) and induction of labor (IOL) in women with class III obesity., Methods: We conducted a cost-minimization analysis using data from a previous study of women with a BMI ≥40 kg/m(2) delivering term singletons via planned CD or after IOL. Decision trees were built with branches for two "treatments": planned CD and IOL (probabilities derived from parent study). Direct and total costs were obtained for each mother-infant pair. Sensitivity analyses for probability of successful IOL were performed., Results: A total of 661 mother-infant pairs were included - 399 IOLs and 262 planned CDs. Of 399 IOLs, 236 (59%) delivered vaginally and 163 (41%) had a CD. IOL was slightly less costly. For IOL and planned CD, respectively, direct costs were $7416 versus $7474, and total costs were $11 545 versus $11 665. Sensitivity analyses indicated that IOL was the least costly strategy if the probability of vaginal delivery after IOL was >57% (0.575 for direct costs; 0.570 for total costs). There was, however, a slight cost advantage to planned CD in women with a prior cesarean., Conclusions: In women with class III obesity, IOL is less costly than planned CD if the probability of vaginal delivery after IOL in an individual patient is greater than 57%.

Background: More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour., Objective: To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups., Methods: We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves., Results: We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective., Limitations: There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses., Conclusions: Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention., Future Work: Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: The safety of anesthetic care provided during childbirth has improved during the past 2 decades in the United States, with a marked decrease in the rate of anesthesia-related adverse events (ARAEs). To date, there is little research on the costs of ARAEs in obstetrics. This study aims to assess the excess cost and cost per admission associated with ARAEs during labor and delivery., Methods: Data came from the New York State Inpatient Database 2010. Discharge records indicating labor and delivery and ARAEs were identified with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. ARAEs were defined as minor if not associated with maternal death, cardiac arrest, or severe morbidity. Costs were calculated as the product of hospital charges and the group average all-payer inpatient charge-to-cost conversion ratio. Excess cost was calculated as the difference between the mean cost of discharges with and without ARAEs. The cost per admission was calculated as the product of the excess cost and ARAE incidence. Excess costs and cost per admission were also calculated for 2 pregnancy-related complications: postpartum hemorrhage and preeclampsia/eclampsia., Results: There were 228,104 delivery-related discharges in the study; of these, 1053 recorded at least 1 ARAE (4.6 per 1000), with 1034 (98.2%) of the ARAEs being minor. The adjusted excess cost associated with ARAEs was $1189 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1033-1350) and the cost per admission $5.49 (95% CI, 4.77-6.23). The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage and preeclamspia/eclampsia was 25.1 and 43.8 per 1000, respectively. The adjusted excess cost was $679 (95% CI, 608-748) and $1328 (95% CI, 1272-1378), respectively; the cost per admission was $17.07 (95% CI, 15.27-18.81) and $58.16 (95% CI, 55.72-60.34), respectively., Conclusions: ARAEs during labor and delivery are associated with significant excess cost. However, the excess cost per admission for ARAEs is significantly less compared with the excess cost per admission for preeclampsia/eclampsia and postpartum hemorrhage.

Objective: To assess health service costs associated with labor induction according to different clinical situations in a tertiary-level hospital., Methods: In a prospective study, individual patient cost data were assessed for women admitted for induction of labor at a tertiary hospital in Spain between November 1, 2012, and August 31, 2013. The costs of labor induction were estimated according to maternal and neonatal outcomes, method of delivery, cervical condition at admission, and obstetric indication. Direct costs including professional fees, epidural, maternal stay, consumables, and drugs were calculated., Results: Overall, 412 women were included in the final cost analysis. The mean total cost of labor induction was €3589.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3475.13-3704.61). Cesarean delivery after labor induction (€4830.45, 95% CI 4623.13-5037.58) was significantly more expensive than spontaneous delivery (€3037.45, 95% CI 2966.91-3179.99) and instrumental vaginal delivery (€3344.31, 95%CI 3151.69-3536.93). The total cost for patients with a very unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <2; €4283.47, 95% CI 4063.06-4503.88) was almost double that for women with a favorable cervix (€2605.09, 95% CI 2327.38-2837.58). Labor induction for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy was the most expensive obstetric indication for induction of labor (€4347.32, 95% CI 3890.45-4804.18)., Conclusion: Following the induction of labor, a number of patient- and treatment-related factors influence costs associated with delivery., (Copyright © 2015 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In a randomized controlled trial of two policies for induction of labor (IOL) using Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) vaginal gel, women who had an earlier amniotomy experienced a shorter IOL-to-birth time., Objective: To report the cost analysis of this trial and determine if there are differences in healthcare costs when an early amniotomy is performed as opposed to giving more PGE2 vaginal gel, for women undergoing IOL at term., Study Design: Following an evening dose of PGE2 vaginal gel, 245 women with live singleton pregnancies, ≥37+0 weeks, were randomized into an amniotomy or repeat-PGE2 group. Healthcare costs were a secondary outcome measure, sourced from hospital finance systems and included staff costs, equipment and consumables, pharmacy, pathology, hotel services and business overheads. A decision analytic model, specifically a Markov chain, was developed to further investigate costs, and a Monte Carlo simulation was performed to confirm the robustness of these findings. Mean and median costs and cost differences between the two groups are reported, from the hospital perspective., Results: The healthcare costs associated with IOL were available for all 245 trial participants. A 1000-patient cohort simulation demonstrated that performing an early amniotomy was associated with a cost-saving of $AUD289 ($AUD7094 vs $AUD7338) per woman induced, compared with administering more PGE2. Propagating the uncertainty through the model 10,000 times, early amniotomy was associated with a median cost savings of $AUD487 (IQR -$AUD573, +$AUD1498)., Conclusions: After an initial dose of PGE2 vaginal gel, a policy of administering more PGE2 when the Modified Bishop's score is <7 was associated with increased healthcare costs compared with a policy of performing an amniotomy, if technically possible. Length of stay was the main driver of healthcare costs., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pre-eclampsia is a pregnancy complication affecting both mother and fetus. Although there is no proven effective method to prevent pre-eclampsia, early identification of women at risk of pre-eclampsia could enhance appropriate application of antenatal care, management and treatment. Very little is known about the cost effectiveness of these and other tests for pre-eclampsia, mainly because there is no clear treatment path. The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing evidence on the health economics of screening, diagnosis and treatment options in pre-eclampsia., Methods: We searched three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) for studies on screening, diagnosis, treatment or prevention of pre-eclampsia, published between 1994 and 2014. Only full papers written in English containing complete economic assessments in pre-eclampsia were included., Results: From an initial total of 138 references, six papers fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Three studies were on the cost effectiveness of treatment of pre-eclampsia, two of which evaluated magnesium sulphate for prevention of seizures and the third evaluated the cost effectiveness of induction of labour versus expectant monitoring. The other three studies were aimed at screening and diagnosis, in combination with subsequent preventive measures. The two studies on magnesium sulphate were equivocal on the cost effectiveness in non-severe cases, and the other study suggested that induction of labour in term pre-eclampsia was more cost effective than expectant monitoring. The screening studies were quite diverse in their objectives as well as in their conclusions. One study concluded that screening is probably not worthwhile, while two other studies stated that in certain scenarios it may be cost effective to screen all pregnant women and prophylactically treat those who are found to be at high risk of developing pre-eclampsia., Discussion: This study is the first to provide a comprehensive overview on the economic aspects of pre-eclampsia in its broadest sense, ranging from screening to treatment options. The main limitation of the present study lies in the variety of topics in combination with the limited number of papers that could be included; this restricted the comparisons that could be made. In conclusion, novel biomarkers in screening for and diagnosing pre-eclampsia show promise, but their accuracy is a major driver of cost effectiveness, as is prevalence. Universal screening for pre-eclampsia, using a biomarker, will be feasible only when accuracy is significantly increased.

Induction of labor in resource-limited settings has the potential to significantly improve health outcomes for both mothers and infants. However, there are relatively little context-specific data to guide practice, and few specific guidelines. Also, there may be considerable issues regarding the facilities and organizational capacities necessary to support safe practices in many aspects of obstetrical practice, and for induction of labor in particular. Herein we describe the various opportunities as well as challenges presented by induction of labor in these settings., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Views on the conduct of labor have changed over time, and a significant difference exists in relation to obstetric centers., Objective: To assess cost, clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of different types of labor in singleton pregnancies., Methods: A decision model was used to compare vaginal labor, induced labor and planned cesarean section. All data were taken from the Book of Labor from the University Hospital for Gynecology and Obstetrics "Narodni Front", Belgrade, Serbia for labors conducted during one month period in 2011. Successful delivery (i.e. labor that began up to 42 gestation weeks, without maternal mortality and the newborn Apgar scores greater than or equal to seven in the fifth minute of life) was considered as the outcome of the cost effectiveness-analysis. To test the robustness of this definition probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed., Results: From a total of 667 births, vaginal labor was conducted in 98 cases, induced vaginal in 442, while planned cesarean section was performed 127 times. Emergency cesarean section as a complication was much higher in the vaginal labor cohort compared to the induced vaginal cohort (OR=17.374; 95% CI: 8.522 to 35.418; p<0.001). The least costly type of labor was induced vaginal labor: average cost 461 euro, with an effectiveness of 98.17%. Both, vaginal and planned cesarean labor were dominated by the induced labor. The results were robust., Conclusion: Elective induction of labor was associated with the lowest cost compared to other types of labor, with favorable maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Background: Rising rates of labor induction and cesarean delivery, especially when used without a medical reason, have generated concern among clinicians, women, and policymakers. Whether employment status affects pregnant women's childbirth-related care is not known. We estimated the relationship between prenatal employment and obstetric procedures, distinguishing whether women reported that the induction or cesarean was performed for medical reasons., Methods: Using data from a nationally representative sample of women who gave birth in U.S. hospitals (n = 1,573), we used propensity score matching to reduce potential bias from nonrandom selection into employment. Outcomes were cesarean delivery and labor induction, with and without a self-reported medical reason. Exposure was prenatal employment status (full-time employment, not employed). We conducted separate analyses for unmatched and matched cohorts using multivariable regression models., Findings: There were no differences in labor induction based on employment status. In unmatched analyses, employed women had higher odds of cesarean delivery overall (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.45; p = .046) and cesarean delivery without medical reason (AOR, 1.94; p = .024). Adding an interaction term between employment and college education revealed no effects on cesarean delivery without medical reason. There were no differences in cesarean delivery by employment status in the propensity score-matched analysis., Conclusions: Full-time prenatal employment is associated with higher odds of cesarean delivery, but this association was not explained by socioeconomic status and no longer existed after accounting for sociodemographic differences by matching women employed full time with similar women not employed during pregnancy., (Copyright © 2014 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Elective labor induction is an increasingly common practice not only in high-income countries, but also in many low-income and middle-income countries. Many questions remain unanswered on the safety and cost-effectiveness of elective labor induction, particularly in resource-constrained settings where there may be a high unmet need for medically indicated inductions, as well as limited or no access to appropriate medications and equipment for induction and monitoring, comprehensive emergency obstetric care, safe and timely cesarean section, and appropriate supervision from health professionals. This article considers the global perspective on the epidemiology, practices, safety, and costs associated with elective labor induction.

Multiple authors have documented that maternal outcomes differ depending on whether labor is spontaneous or electively induced. Correspondingly, there is evidence that women who are electively induced generate more costs than those in spontaneous labor. However, to determine the resource utilization of women who are electively induced, one must compare them to women who experience the actual alternative to induction, namely, expectant management. Observational studies using these comparison groups have not replicated many of the findings that lead to elective inductions being more costly. Moreover, there is little information about the contribution of outpatient costs from expectant management.

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of two dosing regimens of vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour., Materials and Methods: Pregnant women with singleton low risk pregnancy at term scheduled for elective induction of labour were randomized to receive either 25 μg or 50 μg of vaginal misoprostol for pre-labour cervical ripening. All the patients received antenatal care and delivered at the University College Hospital (UCH) from January 1 st to May 31 st 2006. A total of 128 patients were randomized; 65 patients received 25 μg and 63 patients received 50 μg of vaginal misoprostol., Results: Significantly higher number of patients in the 50 μg group progressed to active labour as compared with the 25 μg group (95.2% versus 84.6%, P < 0.05). The need for oxytocin augmentation of labour was higher among the 25 μg as compared with 50 μg (39.7% versus 16.4%, P = 0.007). There was higher proportion of patients in the 50 μg group delivering vaginally within 24 hours as compared with the 25 μg group (98.2% versus 90.0%, P = 0.063). However, the mean interval between the first dose of misoprostol and vaginal delivery was not statistically different in the two groups (754 ± 362 minutes and 885 ± 582 minutes, P = 0.152). The incidence of caesarean section was similar in the two groups (7.7% versus 11%, P = 0.580). Labour complications, such as precipitate labour, tachysystole and abnormal fetal heart rate patterns were greater in the 50 μg group., Conclusion: Twenty-five microgram of misoprostol appears to be as effective as 50 μg for pre-induction cervical ripening and labour induction. Though 50 μg of vaginal misoprostol resulted in relatively faster delivery and less need for oxytocin augmentation, it was associated with more labour complications as compared with 25 μg of misoprostol.

Objective: To compare the costs of induction of labor and expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM)., Design: Economic analysis based on a randomized clinical trial., Setting: Obstetric departments of eight academic and 52 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands., Population: Women with PPROM near term who were not in labor 24 h after PPROM., Methods: A cost-minimization analysis was done from a health care provider perspective, using a bottom-up approach to estimate resource utilization, valued with unit-costs reflecting actual costs., Main Outcome Measures: Primary health outcome was the incidence of neonatal sepsis. Direct medical costs were estimated from start of randomization to hospital discharge of mother and child., Results: Induction of labor did not significantly reduce the probability of neonatal sepsis [2.6% vs. 4.1%, relative risk 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.6)]. Mean costs per woman were €8094 for induction and €7340 for expectant management (difference €754; 95% confidence interval -335 to 1802). This difference predominantly originated in the postpartum period, where the mean costs were €5669 for induction vs. €4801 for expectant management. Delivery costs were higher in women allocated to induction than in women allocated to expectant management (€1777 vs. €1153 per woman). Antepartum costs in the expectant management group were higher because of longer antepartum maternal stays in hospital., Conclusions: In women with pregnancies complicated by PPROM near term, induction of labor does not reduce neonatal sepsis, whereas costs associated with this strategy are probably higher., (© 2014 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of misoprostol for cervical ripening or induction of labor at term., Methods: A critical review of studies identified from searches of PubMed and the Cochrane libraries using the following keywords: "misoprostol", "cervical ripening", "epidemiology", "pregnancy outcome", "maternal morbidity", "perinatal death"., Results: Vaginal misoprostol in doses of 25 μg three- to six-hourly was similar as dinoprostone in effectiveness (caesarean section rate or vaginal delivery in 24 hours) (LE1) and risks (uterine hyperstimulation, adverse neonatal outcome, uterine rupture, maternal side-effects) (LE1). Published medico-economic studies are not sufficient to evaluate a potential profit to the use of vaginal misoprostol 25 μg (Avis d'Experts). The use of misoprostol in women with prior cesarean delivery or major uterine surgery has been associated with an increase in uterine rupture and therefore should be avoided (LE4)., Conclusions: Review of the current literature favors the use of vaginal misoprostol 25 μg three- to six-hourly equally to dinoprostone accordingly with previous French and international guidelines (World Health Organization and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist). The use of misoprostol 25 μg supposes a preparation by the pharmacist to ensure the safety of this precise posology. Medico-economic studies are warranted to attest an economic profit to the use of misoprostol 25 μg in comparison to dinoprostone., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the relationship between nurse-to-patient staffing ratios and perinatal outcomes in women receiving oxytocin during labor., Study Design: A retrospective analysis of perinatal outcomes in women receiving oxytocin for induction or augmentation of labor during 2010. Outcomes examined were fetal distress, birth asphyxia, primary cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, endomyometritis, and a composite of adverse events. Frequency of 1:1 nurse-to-patient staffing was determined for each hospital. Outcomes were compared between hospitals categorized into quartiles of staffing ratios., Results: In 208,033 women delivering during 2010, there was no relation between frequency of 1:1 nurse-to-patient staffing ratio and improved perinatal outcomes. Adoption of universal 1:1 staffing in the United States would result in the need for an additional 27,000 labor nurses and a cost of $1.6 billion., Conclusion: Available data do not support the imposition of mandatory 1:1 nurse-to-patient staffing ratios for women receiving oxytocin in all U.S. facilities., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Scheduling births for non-medical reasons has become an increasingly common practice in the United States and around the world. We exploit a natural experiment created by child tax benefits, which rewards births that occur just before the new year, to better understand the full costs of elective c-sections and inductions. Using data on all births in the U.S. from 1990 to 2000, we first confirm that expectant parents respond to the financial incentives by electing to give birth in December rather than January. We find that most of the manipulation comes from changes in the timing of c-sections. Small birth timing changes, even at full-term, lead to lower birthweight, a lower Apgar score, and an increase in the likelihood of being low birthweight., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) are at increased risk for neonatal morbidity and mortality. The Dutch nationwide disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (DIGITAT trial) showed that induction of labour and expectant monitoring were comparable with respect to composite adverse neonatal outcome and operative delivery. In this study we compare the costs of both strategies., Study Design: A cost analysis was performed alongside the DIGITAT trial, which was a randomized controlled trial in which 650 women with a singleton pregnancy with suspected IUGR beyond 36 weeks of pregnancy were allocated to induction or expectant management. Resource utilization was documented by specific items in the case report forms. Unit costs for clinical resources were calculated from the financial reports of participating hospitals. For primary care costs Dutch standardized prices were used. All costs are presented in Euros converted to the year 2009., Results: Antepartum expectant monitoring generated more costs, mainly due to longer antepartum maternal stays in hospital. During delivery and the postpartum stage, induction generated more direct medical costs, due to longer stay in the labour room and longer duration of neonatal high care/medium care admissions. From a health care perspective, both strategies generated comparable costs: on average €7106 per patient for the induction group (N=321) and €6995 for the expectant management group (N=329) with a cost difference of €111 (95%CI: €-1296 to 1641)., Conclusion: Induction of labour and expectant monitoring in IUGR at term have comparable outcomes immediately after birth in terms of obstetrical outcomes, maternal quality of life and costs. Costs are lower, however, in the expectant monitoring group before 38 weeks of gestation and costs are lower in the induction of labour group after 38 weeks of gestation. So if induction of labour is considered to pre-empt possible stillbirth in suspected IUGR, it is reasonable to delay until 38 weeks, with watchful monitoring., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the costs of inpatient (usual care) with outpatient (intervention) care for cervical priming for induction of labour in women with healthy, low-risk pregnancies who are being induced for prolonged pregnancies or for social reasons., Methods: Data from a randomised controlled trial at two hospitals in South Australia were matched with hospital financial data. A cost analysis comparing women randomised to inpatient care with those randomised to outpatient care was performed, with an additional analysis focusing on those who received the intervention., Results: Overall, 48% of women randomised into the trial did not receive the intervention. Women randomised to outpatient care had an overall cost saving of $319 per woman (95% CI -$104 to $742) as compared with women randomised to usual care. When restricted to women who actually received the intervention, in-hospital cost savings of $433 (95% CI -$282 to $1148) were demonstrated in the outpatient group. However, these savings were partially offset by the cost of an outpatient priming clinic, reducing the overall cost savings to $156 per woman., Conclusions: Overall cost savings were not statistically significant in women who were randomised to or received the intervention. However, the trend in cost savings favoured outpatient priming.

Objective: To assess outcomes and costs of dyads achieving elective induction bundle criteria with a favorable Bishop score., Study Design: In a historical automated records-based cohort study, 180 dyads undergoing elective induction bundling at a single institution from 2009 to 2010 were compared to a pre-introduction of bundling cohort. The bundled cohort was then compared by Bishop score., Results: The bundled cohort (n = 180) had a lower cesarean delivery rate (12% vs. 21%, p = 0.01), but neonatal special or intensive care admissions were not statistically significant compared to the pre-introduction of bundling cohort (n = 473). Ninety-six percent (n = 173) of the bundled cohort achieved bundle criteria. Those with a Bishop score > 6 (52%, n = 90) had fewer cesarean deliveries (4% vs. 19%, p = 0.003), fewer neonatal special or intensive care admissions (1% vs. 10%, p = 0.015), shorter induction time to vaginal delivery (8.8 vs. 17 hrs, p < 0.001), fewer cesareans for dystocia (75% vs. 94%, p = 0.002) or fetal heart rate abnormalities (25% vs. 50%, p = 0.015), and had one-sixth the average net income lost ($423 vs. $2,600, p < 0.001) compared to bundle achievers with a Bishop score of < or = 6., Conclusion: The elective induction bundle does not guarantee quality and should require favorable cervix instead of documented Bishop score to proceed with induction.

Hospitals and health care systems are already seeing the effect of health care reform with declining dollars. Hospital services, which had narrow financial margins in the past, will have further challenges. This article will review definitions, challenges, and potential financial solutions for labor and delivery units. Improving quality, efficiency, and cost requires substantial physician cooperation in the changing paradigm from physician-centric care to the transparent safety of teams. The financial contribution margin should increase the net revenue, but significant volumes are also needed. The challenge of this model for obstetrics is the slowing birth rate with the ultimate limitation for growth. Therefore, cost containment is imperative for sustainability. Standardization of hospital policies and procedures can improve quality and cost-savings with new incentive models. Examples include decreasing expensive pharmaceuticals, minimizing elective inductions of labor, and encouraging breast-feeding. As providers of health care to women, we all must engage in the triple aim of (1) improving the experience of care, (2) improving the health of populations, and (3) reducing per capita costs of health care. Although accountable care organizations presently are focused on Medicare populations for cost containment, all health care providers and institutions must be vigilant on both quality cost-effective care for sustainability, especially in obstetrics., (Copyright © 2013 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

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 E2 labour induction generate comparable costs., (© 2013 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2013 RCOG.)

Background: Increasing birth rates have raised questions for policy makers and hospital management about the economic costs of childbirth., Objective: The purpose of this article is to identify and review all existing scientific studies in relation to the economic costs of alternative modes of childbirth delivery and to highlight deficiencies in the existing scientific research., Method: We searched Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, EconLit, the Excerpta Medica Database, the Health Economic Evaluations Database, MEDLINE and PubMed., Results: Thirty articles are included in this review. The main findings suggest that there is no internationally acceptable childbirth cost and clinical outcome classification system that allows for comparisons across different delivery modes., Conclusion: This review demonstrates that a better understanding and classification of the costs and associated clinical outcomes of childbirth is required to allow for valid comparisons between maternity units, and to inform policy makers and hospital management., (© 2013 The Authors Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica © 2013 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Background: Different types of labour need different resources. Subsequently, different costs should be expected., Aim: The aim of the study was to determine costs of planned Caesarean section (C-section) in relation to costs of spontaneous (SVD) and induced vaginal (IVD) delivery., Methods: Retrospective study was conducted for the period January 1st-December 31st, 2010. Database of Health Insurance Fund of Republic of Serbia was used as a data source. Direct medical costs of labor were estimated for mother/newborn pair., Results: The sample was consisted of 99 women where 46.5% had SVD, 28.3% IVD and 25.2% C-section. The average costs of labor, regardless of method, were 417.02+284.14 EUR. Costs of C-section were higher compare to SVD (640.18 +/- 240.04 vs. 243.27 +/- 131.70 EUR, p < 0.05) and IVD (640.18 +/- 240.04 vs. 497.10 +/- 327.91 EUR, p < 0.05)., Conclusion: Considering high costs of C-section, it is necessary to review such clinical practice for the purpose of optimizing the use of resources.

The aim of this study was to perform a structural sensitivity analysis of a decision model and to identify its advantages and limitations. A previously published model of dinoprostone was modified, taking two scenarios into account: eliminating postpartum hemorrhages and including both hemorrhages and uterine hyperstimulation among the adverse effects. The result of the structural sensitivity analysis shows the robustness of the underlying model and confirmed the initial results: the intrauterine device is more cost-effective than intracervical dinoprostone gel. Structural sensitivity analyses should be congruent with the situation studied and clinically validated. Although uncertainty may be only slightly reduced, these analyses provide information and add greater validity and reliability to the model., (Copyright © 2011 Sociedad Española de Farmacia Hospitalaria. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) vaginal gel for the induction of labour at term from the perspective of the UK's National Health Service., Design: Economic evaluation conducted as part of a randomised controlled trial., Setting: Maternity department at a major teaching hospital in London, UK., Population: A cohort of 165 pregnant women presenting as cephalic between 36(+⁶) and 41(+⁶) weeks of gestation, for whom induction of labour was deemed necessary., Methods: Either 3-mg Prostin E2 vaginal tablets or 1- or 2-mg Prostin E2 vaginal gel were administered at 6-hourly intervals., Main Outcome Measures: Incremental cost per hour prevented between induction and delivery. The nonparametric bootstrap method was used to construct cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and estimate net benefits at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds., Results: Women receiving the gel accrued nonsignificantly higher costs (incremental cost £630; bootstrap 95% CI -£353, £2320; P = 0.43), and experienced a significantly reduced interval between induction and delivery (median of 1400 versus 1780 minutes; mean of 1711 versus 2765 minutes; P = 0.03). The incremental cost per hour prevented from induction of labour to delivery was estimated at £36. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £100 per hour of care prevented, the probability that the gel is cost-effective was estimated at 0.83, and the mean net benefit to the health services was estimated at £1121 (bootstrap 95% CI -£1133, £3379). The results were sensitive to the inclusion of neonatal costs in the analysis and the value of the cost-effectiveness threshold. Notably, excluding neonatal costs increased the probability that the gel is cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £100 per hour of care prevented to 0.99., Conclusions: This study suggests that prostaglandin E2 gel is probably more cost-effective than prostaglandin E2 tablets for the induction of labour at term. Given that the results are applicable to the general obstetric population requiring induction of labour at term, decision-makers should consider the likely economic impacts of their implementation., (© 2011 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2011 RCOG.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone for term labor induction., Material and Methods: It was a randomized controlled trial done in the Obstetrics Department, Shifa Community Health Centre, Shifa International Hospital (Teaching Hospital of Shifa College of Medicine, Islamabad). All pregnant women at term pregnancy coming for induction of labor were enrolled. 246 women fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Out of them 208 women consented to be part of the study. These women were then randomized to receive either Treatment A (vaginal misoprostol) or Treatment B (vaginal dinoprostone). Data were completed for 200 women. These included induction labor and induction-delivery interval, fetal and maternal complications, and baby apgar score., Results: Out of 200 women in the study, 100 were in Group A and 100 in Group B. Labor commenced in a mean of 6.67 hours (± 3.63) in Group A whereas it took a mean of 8.41 hours (± 5.13) in Group B (p=0.00). Actual induction to delivery (of the baby) interval was a mean of 11.68 hours (± 4.55) for misoprostol and 15.37 hours (± 5.30) for dinoprostone group (p=0.00). There were no cases of uterine rupture in both groups; however, there were 10 cases of uterine hyperstimulation in Group A and 4 in Group B (p=0.09)., Conclusions: It is time to re-evaluate the role of misoprostol for term labor induction. It is an efficacious and cost-effective alternative to the presently licensed treatment., (Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier B.V.)