Cost-effectiveness of salpingotomy and salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy (a randomized controlled trial).

STUDY QUESTION: Is salpingotomy cost effective compared with salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy and a healthy contralateral tube? SUMMARY ANSWER: Salpingotomy is not cost effective over salpingectomy as a surgical procedure for tubal pregnancy, as its costs are higher without a better ongoing pregnancy rate while risks of persistent trophoblast are higher. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Women with a tubal pregnancy treated by salpingotomy or salpingectomy in the presence of a healthy contralateral tube have comparable ongoing pregnancy rates by natural conception. Salpingotomy bears the risk of persistent trophoblast necessitating additional medical or surgical treatment. Repeat ectopic pregnancy occurs slightly more often after salpingotomy compared with salpingectomy. Both consequences imply potentially higher costs after salpingotomy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation of salpingotomy compared with salpingectomy in an international multicentre randomized controlled trial in women with a tubal pregnancy and a healthy contralateral tube. Between 24 September 2004 and 29 November 2011, women were allocated to salpingotomy (n = 215) or salpingectomy (n = 231). Fertility follow-up was done up to 36 months post-operatively. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. We compared the direct medical costs of salpingotomy and salpingectomy until an ongoing pregnancy occurred by natural conception within a time horizon of 36 months. Direct medical costs included the surgical treatment of the initial tubal pregnancy, readmissions including reinterventions, treatment for persistent trophoblast and interventions for repeat ectopic pregnancy. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Mean direct medical costs per woman in the salpingotomy group and in the salpingectomy group were €3319 versus €2958, respectively, with a mean difference of €361 (95% confidence interval €217 to €515). Salpingotomy resulted in a marginally higher ongoing pregnancy rate by natural conception compared with salpingectomy leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €40 982 (95% confidence interval -€130 319 to €145 491) per ongoing pregnancy. Since salpingotomy resulted in more additional treatments for persistent trophoblast and interventions for repeat ectopic pregnancy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not informative. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Costs of any subsequent IVF cycles were not included in this analysis. The analysis was limited to the perspective of the hospital. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: However, a small treatment benefit of salpingotomy might be enough to cover the costs of subsequent IVF. This uncertainty should be incorporated in shared decision-making. Whether salpingotomy should be offered depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional child. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Region Västra Götaland Health & Medical Care Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN37002267.

Is salpingostomy the surgical treatment of choice for unruptured tubal pregnancy?

Salpingostomy has gradually replaced salpingectomy as the surgical procedure of choice for unruptured tubal pregnancy in women who wish to preserve fertility. There are no prospective studies and only a few retrospective reports comparing fertility rates after salpingostomy and salpingectomy. Three major retrospective studies found no significant difference in fertility or incidence of repeat ectopic pregnancy between the two procedures, but salpingostomy carries a 5-8% risk of persistent ectopic pregnancy, contributing to increased morbidity and cost. There are approximately 109,000 ectopic pregnancies per year in the United States. If half are treated by salpingostomy, 54,500 women will need serial beta-hCG testing after surgery. Approximately 3543 will have a persistent ectopic pregnancy requiring surgical or medical treatment. The additional direct costs created by persistent ectopic pregnancy is estimated to be almost $16,000,000. Fertility after ectopic pregnancy is affected much more by the status of the contralateral tube than by the procedure performed, with fertility rates exceeding 80% after salpingectomy when the opposite tube is normal. By performing salpingectomy when the contralateral tube is normal, half the additional cost and morbidity could be avoided without jeopardizing subsequent fertility.

Treatment of the small unruptured ectopic pregnancy: a cost analysis of methotrexate versus laparoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the economic costs between two strategies for management of the small unruptured ectopic pregnancy: initial treatment with methotrexate versus initial treatment with laparoscopic salpingostomy. METHODS: We assumed that both treatment strategies would result in identical clinical outcomes: resolution of the ectopic pregnancy without maternal mortality or long-term morbidity. Based on a literature review, estimates were derived for the likely clinical outcomes of a single injection of methotrexate (50 mg/m2) and for the likely clinical outcomes of the laparoscopy strategy. A range of values was evaluated for the initial success rate of each strategy and varying assumptions made about the type of treatment modality used for initial treatment failures. Direct medical costs of each strategy were estimated based on actual reimbursement rates of a third-party payer for the components of each strategy. The treatment strategies were compared in best-case/worst-case scenarios to determine the potential range of differences in costs between the two strategies. RESULTS: The cost of the methotrexate strategy ranged from $438 to $1390, and the cost of laparoscopic salpingostomy ranged from $2506 to $2974; therefore, the methotrexate strategy was less costly than laparoscopy, with a cost difference ranging from $1124 (best-case laparoscopy-worst-case methotrexate scenario) to $2536 (worst-case laparoscopy-best-case methotrexate scenario). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that initial therapy with methotrexate was less costly over a wide range of probability and cost estimates. CONCLUSION: Initial methotrexate is a cost-effective alternative to laparoscopic salpingostomy in the treatment of the small unruptured ectopic pregnancy.

Current evidence on surgery, systemic methotrexate and expectant management in the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness of surgery, medical treatment and expectant management of tubal ectopic pregnancy (EP) in terms of treatment success (i.e. complete elimination of trophoblast tissue), financial costs and future fertility. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials which described treatment interventions that have been widely adopted in clinical practice. A systemic literature search identified 15 trials. RESULTS: Laparoscopic salpingostomy was significantly less successful than the open surgical approach (relative risk, RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.82-0.99) due to a higher persistent trophoblast rate, but was significantly less costly. A prophylactic single shot methotrexate (MTX), given intramuscularly (i.m.) immediately post-operatively, significantly reduced persistent trophoblast after laparoscopic salpingostomy (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.98, number needed to treat of 10). With systemic MTX in a fixed multiple dose i.m. regimen the likelihood of treatment success was higher than with laparoscopic salpingostomy (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.93-1.43), but the difference was not significant. Systemic MTX in a fixed multiple dose i.m. regimen was only cost-effective if serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) concentrations were <3000 IU/l. If serum hCG concentrations were <1500 IU/l, then the single-dose MTX i.m. regimen-if necessary with additional MTX injections-was also cost-effective. Expectant management could not be evaluated yet. Subsequent fertility did not differ between the interventions studied. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows that laparoscopic surgery is the most cost-effective treatment for tubal EP. Systemic MTX is a good alternative in selected patients with low serum hCG concentrations.

Treatment of tubal pregnancy in the netherlands: an economic comparison of systemic methotrexate administration and laparoscopic salpingostomy.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare from a societal perspective the costs of systemic methotrexate administration with those of laparoscopic salpingostomy for the treatment of patients with tubal pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: An economic evaluation was set up in tandem with a multicenter randomized clinical trial that compared systemic methotrexate administration and laparoscopic salpingostomy for the treatment of 100 hemodynamically stable patients with laparoscopically confirmed unruptured tubal pregnancy. Data on resources used for treatment and lost production time were prospectively collected and costs of both treatments were calculated by multiplying actual expenses for resource units at a single center and resource unit use measured in all centers. Costs were originally calculated in Dutch guilders and converted to US dollars at a rate of 1.67 guilders/$1. RESULTS: Because clinical outcomes of the trial were equivalent for the 2 strategies a cost-minimization analysis was done. Mean total costs per patient were $5721 for systemic methotrexate administration and $4066 for laparoscopic salpingostomy, with a mean difference of $1655 (95% confidence interval, $906-$2414). Costs of systemic methotrexate administration were similar to those of salpingostomy for patients in whom the initial serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentration was <1500 IU/L, a cutoff value that had not been previously hypothesized. In a scenario without a confirmatory laparoscopy, in which transvaginal ultrasonography and serial repeated serum human chorionic gonadotropin measurements were assumed to be as accurate as laparoscopy, systemic methotrexate therapy would have reduced total cost by $1500 for a patient with an initial serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentration of <1500 IU/L. In such a scenario total costs would have been similar for a patient with an initial serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentration in the range of 1500 to 3000 IU/L, whereas systemic methotrexate administration would be more costly for a patient with an initial serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentration of >3000 IU/L. CONCLUSIONS: Although systemic methotrexate administration is safe and effective for the treatment of tubal pregnancy, it does not necessarily reduce costs. Systemic methotrexate therapy could reduce costs if administered to patients with low initial serum human chorionic gonadotropin concentrations without confirmatory laparoscopy.

Operative laparoscopy in the management of tubal ectopic pregnancy.

One hundred and seventeen consecutive patients with diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy admitted to Temple University Hospital between October 1989 and March 1992 were divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 56 patients with operative laparoscopy and Group 2 consisted of 61 patients treated by laparotomy. The two groups were similar for age, race, parity, gestation, presentation, and location of the ectopic gestations. Fifty seven percent of patients in the laparoscopy group were treated by salpingectomy and 43% by salpingostomy, compared to 84% and 16% respectively in the laparotomy group. Mean operative time for laparoscopy was 58 min and 42 min for laparotomy. Complication rates were similar in the two sub-groups. Only two patients in the laparoscopy group required subsequent laparotomy, one to assure hemostasis and one, 5 weeks following surgery, for persistent trophoblastic disease. Operative laparoscopy was associated with a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (1.25 v. 4.39 days). This reflected in a lower cost of hospital stay ($10,105 vs. $13,608). The present data demonstrates that operative laparoscopy is not only safe and effective, but also more economical than open laparotomy in the treatment of ectopic pregnancies. This procedure is expected to replace laparotomy for the treatment of most cases of tubal ectopic pregnancy.