Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand ; 93(4): 374-81, 2014 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24392746

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Ruptura Prematura de Membranas Fetais/economia , Ruptura Prematura de Membranas Fetais/terapia , Trabalho de Parto Induzido/economia , Conduta Expectante/economia , Adulto , Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Analgésicos/economia , Controle de Custos , Redução de Custos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Cuidados Críticos/economia , Parto Obstétrico/economia , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Recém-Nascido , Terapia Intensiva Neonatal/economia , Trabalho de Parto Induzido/métodos , Tempo de Internação/economia , Monitorização Fisiológica/economia , Países Baixos/epidemiologia , Gravidez , Terceiro Trimestre da Gravidez , Sepse/epidemiologia
2.
PLoS Med ; 9(4): e1001208, 2012.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22545024

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: At present, there is insufficient evidence to guide appropriate management of women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) near term. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in 60 hospitals in The Netherlands, which included non-laboring women with >24 h of PPROM between 34(+0) and 37(+0) wk of gestation. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to induction of labor (IoL) or expectant management (EM) using block randomization. The main outcome was neonatal sepsis. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), and chorioamnionitis. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to randomization status. We updated a prior meta-analysis on the effect of both interventions on neonatal sepsis, RDS, and cesarean section rate. From 1 January 2007 to 9 September 2009, 776 patients in 60 hospitals were eligible for the study, of which 536 patients were randomized. Four patients were excluded after randomization. We allocated 266 women (268 neonates) to IoL and 266 women (270 neonates) to EM. Neonatal sepsis occurred in seven (2.6%) newborns of women in the IoL group and in 11 (4.1%) neonates in the EM group (relative risk [RR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 1.6). RDS was seen in 21 (7.8%, IoL) versus 17 neonates (6.3%, EM) (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.67 to 2.3), and a cesarean section was performed in 36 (13%, IoL) versus 37 (14%, EM) women (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.50). The risk for chorioamnionitis was reduced in the IoL group. No serious adverse events were reported. Updating an existing meta-analysis with our trial results (the only eligible trial for the update) indicated RRs of 1.06 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.76) for neonatal sepsis (eight trials, 1,230 neonates) and 1.27 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.65) for cesarean section (eight trials, 1,222 women) for IoL compared with EM. CONCLUSIONS: In women whose pregnancy is complicated by late PPROM, neither our trial nor the updated meta-analysis indicates that IoL substantially improves pregnancy outcomes compared with EM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29313500


Assuntos
Ruptura Prematura de Membranas Fetais , Doenças do Recém-Nascido/prevenção & controle , Trabalho de Parto Induzido , Trabalho de Parto , Monitorização Fisiológica/métodos , Complicações Infecciosas na Gravidez , Resultado da Gravidez , Adolescente , Adulto , Cesárea , Corioamnionite/prevenção & controle , Feminino , Feto , Idade Gestacional , Humanos , Recém-Nascido , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Países Baixos , Gravidez , Síndrome do Desconforto Respiratório do Recém-Nascido/prevenção & controle , Sepse , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA