Moving preinduction cervical ripening to a lower acuity inpatient setting using the synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator: a cost-consequence analysis for the United States.

It is estimated that approximately 20% of deliveries in the USA are submitted to cervical ripening prior to induction of labor to facilitate a vaginal delivery. Cervical ripening can be achieved either by administering a synthetic hormone, called a prostaglandin (e.g. misoprostol or dinoprostone), or by using mechanical means of stretching the cervix (e.g. using the synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator ­ SHCD). Prostaglandins have been associated with an increased risk of overstimulating uterus contractions such that the person undergoing cervical ripening with prostaglandins requires close monitoring. Each method for cervical ripening has advantages and disadvantages and there is no high-quality evidence to recommend one from the others based on clinical outcomes. In this theoretical study, we estimated the hospital costs and staff time for induction of labor care when using the SHCD in a lower acuity setting within the hospital, without monitoring facilities, in comparison to the patient remaining in the labor-and-delivery room using misoprotol or dinoprostone preparations. Our results suggest that misoprostol resulted in the least expensive option closely followed by the SHCD in a lower acuity setting, both with the potential for notable cost savings when compared to using dinoprostone preparations for cervical ripening. In addition, we associated up to several hours less staff time with the use of the SHCD in a lower acuity setting in comparison to misoprostol and dinoprostone. Patients that were delivering for the first time benefitted more from using the SHCD in a lower acuity setting in comparison to those who had delivered previously.