Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic salpingectomy vs tubal ligation at the time of cesarean delivery.

Background: Removal of the fallopian tubes at the time of hysterectomy or interval sterilization has become routine practice to prevent ovarian cancer. While emerging as a strategy, uptake of this procedure at the time of cesarean delivery for pregnant women seeking permanent sterilization has not been widely adopted due to perceptions of increased morbidity and operative difficulty with a lack of available data in this setting.
Objective: We sought to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing strategies for long-term sterilization and ovarian cancer risk reduction at the time of cesarean delivery, including bilateral tubal ligation, opportunistic salpingectomy, and long-acting reversible contraception.
Study Design: A decision-analytic and cost-effectiveness model was constructed for pregnant women undergoing cesarean delivery who desired permanent sterilization in the US population, comparing 3 strategies: (1) bilateral tubal ligation, (2) bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy, and (3) postpartum long-acting reversible contraception. This theoretic cohort consisted of 110,000 pregnant women desiring permanent sterilization at the time of cesarean delivery and ovarian cancer prevention at an average of 35 years who were monitored for an additional 40 years based on an average US female life expectancy of 75 years. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years. Secondary outcomes included: the number of ovarian cancer cases and deaths, procedure-related complications, and unintended and ectopic pregnancies. The 1-, 2-, and 3-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000.
Results: Both bilateral tubal ligation and bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy with cesarean delivery have favorable cost-effectiveness ratios. In the base case analysis, salpingectomy was more cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,189 per quality-adjusted life year compared to tubal ligation. Long-acting reversible contraception after cesarean was not cost-effective (ie, dominated). Although salpingectomy and tubal ligation were both cost-effective over a wide range of cost and risk estimates, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio analysis was highly sensitive to the uncertainty around the estimates of salpingectomy cancer risk reduction, risk of perioperative complications, and cost. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis estimated that tubal ligation had a 49% chance of being the preferred strategy over salpingectomy. If the true salpingectomy risk of perioperative complications is >2% higher than tubal ligation or if the cancer risk reduction of salpingectomy is <52%, then tubal ligation is the preferred, more cost-effective strategy.
Conclusion: Bilateral tubal ligation and bilateral opportunistic salpingectomy with cesarean delivery are both cost-effective strategies for permanent sterilization and ovarian cancer risk reduction. Although salpingectomy and tubal ligation are both reasonable strategies for cesarean patients seeking permanent sterilization and cancer risk reduction, threshold analyses indicate that the risks and benefits of salpingectomy with cesarean delivery need to be better defined before a preferred strategy can be determined.
(Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)