JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Cost-effectiveness of induction of labour at term with a Foley catheter compared to vaginal prostaglandin E₂ gel (PROBAAT trial).

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.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app