Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the costs of labour induction with oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Obstetric departments of six tertiary and 23 secondary care hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women with a viable term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) without a previous caesarean section, were randomised for labour induction with oral misoprostol (n = 924) or Foley catheter (n = 921). METHODS: We performed economic analysis from a hospital perspective. We estimated direct medical costs associated with healthcare utilisation from randomisation until discharge. The robustness of our findings was evaluated in sensitivity analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean costs and differences were calculated per women induced with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. RESULTS: Mean costs per woman in the oral misoprostol group and Foley catheter group were €4470 versus €4158, respectively [mean difference €312, 95% confidence interval (CI) -€508 to €1063]. Multiple sensitivity analyses did not change these conclusions. However, if cervical ripening for low-risk pregnancies in the Foley catheter group was carried out in an outpatient setting, with admittance to labour ward only at start of active labour, the difference would be €4470 versus €3489, respectively (mean difference €981, 95% CI €225-1817). CONCLUSIONS: Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter generate comparable costs. Cervical ripening outside labour ward with a Foley catheter could potentially save almost €1000 per woman. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Oral misoprostol or Foley catheter for induction of labour generates comparable costs.

Assessment of changes in left ventricular systolic function with oesophageal Doppler.

BACKGROUND: We tested the ability of mean acceleration (Acc) and peak velocity (V peak) of the aortic velocity signal measured by oesophageal Doppler to reflect left ventricular (LV) systolic performance. METHODS: We included critically ill patients in whom a fluid challenge (n=25) or the introduction of dobutamine, 5 µg kg(-1) min(-1) (n=25), was planned by the attending physician. Before and after therapeutic interventions, we measured Acc and V peak (CardioQ device) and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) using echocardiography. RESULTS: For all pairs of measurements, the absolute values of Acc and V peak correlated with LVEF (r=0.36 and 0.57, respectively). The correlation was significantly higher for V peak than for Acc. Volume expansion did not significantly change LVEF and Acc, but significantly increased V peak by 7 (8)%. Dobutamine increased LVEF by 30 (15)%, Acc by 33 (25)%, and V peak by 20 (10)%. Considering the pooled effects of volume expansion and dobutamine, changes in Acc and V peak and those of LVEF were correlated (r=0.53 and 0.67, respectively). When excluding changes <18% (i.e. the least significant change for LVEF), the concordance rate was 96% for Acc and 100% for V peak. CONCLUSIONS: V peak and, to a lesser extent, Acc measured by oesophageal Doppler behaved as markers of LV systolic performance as they were almost insensitive to fluid administration and changed to a much larger extent with dobutamine. These indices could be used to estimate LV systolic performance and to assess the effects of inotropic therapy.

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.

Prediction of fluid responsiveness by a continuous non-invasive assessment of arterial pressure in critically ill patients: comparison with four other dynamic indices.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the ability of an infrared photoplethysmography arterial waveform (continuous non-invasive arterial pressure, CNAP) to estimate arterial pulse pressure variation (PPV). We compared the ability of non-invasive PPV to predict fluid responsiveness with invasive PPV, respiratory variation of pulse contour-derived stroke volume, and changes in cardiac index induced by passive leg raising (PLR) and end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) tests. METHODS: We measured the responses of cardiac index (PiCCO) to 500 ml of saline in 47 critically ill patients with haemodynamic failure. Before fluid administration, we recorded non-invasive and invasive PPVs, stroke volume variation, and changes in cardiac index induced by PLR and by 15 s EEO. Logistic regressions were performed to investigate the advantage of combining invasive PPV, stroke volume variation, PLR, and EEO when predicting fluid responsiveness. RESULTS: In eight patients, CNAP could not record arterial pressure. In the 39 remaining patients, fluid increased cardiac index by ≥15% in 17 'responders'. Considering the 195 pairs of measurements, the bias (sd) between invasive and non-invasive PPVs was -0.6 (2.3)%. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for predicting fluid responsiveness were 0.89 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.01) for non-invasive PPV compared with 0.89 (0.77-1.01), 0.84 (0.70-0.96), 0.95 (0.88-1.03), and 0.97 (0.91-1.03) for invasive pulse pressure, stroke volume variations, PLR, and EEO tests (no significant difference). Combining multiple tests did not significantly improve the area under the ROC curves. CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive assessment of PPV seems valuable in predicting fluid responsiveness.