Impact on perinatal health and cost-effectiveness of risk-based care in obstetrics: a before-after study.

BACKGROUND: Obstetric health care relies on an adequate antepartum risk selection. Most guidelines used for risk stratification, however, do not assess absolute risks. In 2017, a prediction tool was implemented in a Dutch region. This tool combines first trimester prediction models with obstetric care paths tailored to the individual risk profile, enabling risk-based care. OBJECTIVE: To assess impact and cost-effectiveness of risk-based care compared to care-as-usual in a general population. METHODS: A before-after study was conducted using 2 multicenter prospective cohorts. The first cohort (2013-2015) received care-as-usual; the second cohort (2017-2018) received risk-based care. Health outcomes were (1) a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes and (2) maternal quality-adjusted life-years. Costs were estimated using a health care perspective from conception to 6 weeks after the due date. Mean costs per woman, cost differences between the 2 groups, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios were calculated. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: In total 3425 women were included. In nulliparous women there was a significant reduction of perinatal adverse outcomes among the risk-based care group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.94), but not in multiparous women. Mean costs per pregnant woman were significantly lower for risk-based care (mean difference, -€2766; 95% confidence interval, -€3700 to -€1825). No differences in maternal quality of life, adjusted for baseline health, were observed. CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands, risk-based care in nulliparous women was associated with improved perinatal outcomes as compared to care-as-usual. Furthermore, risk-based care was cost-effective compared to care-as-usual and resulted in lower health care costs.

Prediction of postpartum hemorrhage in women with gestational hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether postpartum hemorrhage can be predicted in women with gestational hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term. DESIGN: A cohort study in which we used data from our multicentre randomized controlled trial (HYPITAT trial). SETTING: The study was conducted in 38 hospitals in the Netherlands between 2005 and 2008. POPULATION: Women with gestational hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term (n = 1132). METHODS: An antepartum model (model A) and an antepartum/intrapartum model (model B) were created using logistic regression. The predictive capacity of the models was assessed with receiver operating characteristic analysis and calibration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Postpartum hemorrhage, defined as blood loss >1000 mL within 24 h after delivery. RESULTS: Postpartum hemorrhage occurred in 118 (10.4%) women. Maternal age (odds ratio 1.03), prepregnancy body mass index (odds ratio 0.96), and women with preeclampsia (odds ratio 1.5) were independent antepartum prognostic variables of postpartum hemorrhage. Intrapartum variables incorporated in the model were gestational age at delivery (odds ratio 1.2), duration of dilatation stage (odds ratio 1.1), and episiotomy (odds ratio 1.5). Model A and model B showed moderate discrimination, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.53-0.64) and 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.59-0.70), respectively. Calibration was moderate for model A (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.26) but better for model B (Hosmer-Lemeshow p = 0.36). The rates of postpartum hemorrhage ranged from 4% (lowest 10%) to 22% (highest 10%). CONCLUSION: In the assessment of performance of a prediction model, calibration is more important than discriminative capacity. Our prediction model shows that for women with gestational hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term, distinction between low and high risk of developing postpartum hemorrhage is possible when antepartum and intrapartum variables are combined.

Economic analysis comparing induction of labour and expectant management for intrauterine growth restriction at term (DIGITAT trial).

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.