Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 7 de 7
Filtrar
1.
Obstet Gynecol ; 2024 Feb 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38422504

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of universal fetal echocardiogram for patients with pregestational diabetes mellitus by first-trimester hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) level. METHODS: We developed a cost-effectiveness model comparing two strategies of screening for critical fetal congenital heart disease among patients with diabetes: universal fetal echocardiogram and fetal echocardiogram only after abnormal findings on detailed anatomy ultrasonogram. We excluded ventricular septal defect, atrial septal defects, and bicuspid aortic valve from the definition of critical fetal congenital heart disease. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios: first-trimester Hb A1c lower than 6.5%, Hb A1c 6.5-9.0%, and Hb A1c higher than 9.0%. Primary outcomes included fetal death, neonatal death, and false-positive and false-negative results. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariable sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the drivers of the model. RESULTS: Universal fetal echocardiogram is not cost effective except for when first-trimester Hb A1c level is higher than 9.0% (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $638,100, $223,693, and $67,697 for Hb A1c lower than 6.5%, 6.5-9.0%, and higher than 9.0%, respectively). The models are sensitive to changes in the probability of congenital heart disease at a given Hb A1c level, as well as the cost of neonatal transfer to a higher level of care. Universal fetal echocardiogram became both cost saving and more effective when the probability of congenital heart disease reached 14.48% (15.4 times the baseline risk). In the Monte Carlo simulation, universal fetal echocardiogram is cost effective in 22.7%, 48.6%, and 62.3% of scenarios for each of the three models, respectively. CONCLUSION: For pregnant patients with first-trimester Hb A1c levels lower than 6.5%, universal fetal echocardiogram was not cost effective, whereas, for those with first-trimester Hb A1c levels higher than 9.0%, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective. For those with intermediate Hb A1c levels, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective in about 50% of cases; therefore, clinical judgment based on individual patient values, willingness to pay to detect congenital heart disease, and resource availability needs to be considered.

3.
Am J Perinatol ; 37(10): 1031-1037, 2020 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32544961

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The health care system has been struggling to find the optimal way to protect patients and staff from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our objective was to evaluate the impact of two strategies on transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers (HCW) on labor and delivery (L&D). STUDY DESIGN: We developed a decision analytic model comparing universal COVID-19 screening and universal PPE on L&D. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios including spontaneous labor, induced labor, and planned cesarean delivery (CD). The primary outcome was the cost to prevent COVID-19 infection in one HCW. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $25,000 to prevent a single infection in an HCW. RESULTS: In the base case using a COVID-19 prevalence of 0.36% (the rate in the United States at the time), universal screening is the preferred strategy because while universal PPE is more effective at preventing COVID-19 transmission, it is also more costly, costing $4,175,229 and $3,413,251 to prevent one infection in the setting of spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. For planned CD, universal PPE is cost saving. The model is sensitive to variations in the prevalence of COVID-19 and the cost of PPE. Universal PPE becomes cost-effective at a COVID-19 prevalence of 34.3 and 29.5% and at a PPE cost of $512.62 and $463.20 for spontaneous and induced labor, respectively. At a higher cost-effectiveness threshold, the prevalence of COVID-19 can be lower for universal PPE to become cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Universal COVID-19 screening is generally the preferred option. However, in locations with high COVID-19 prevalence or where the local societal cost of one HCW being unavailable is the highest such as in rural areas, universal PPE may be cost-effective and preferred. This model may help to provide guidance regarding allocation of resources on L&D during these current and future pandemics. KEY POINTS: · Universal screening is the preferred strategy for labor.. · With high prevalence, universal PPE is cost-effective.. · For planned cesarean, universal PPE is cost saving..


Asunto(s)
Infecciones por Coronavirus/prevención & control , Parto Obstétrico/métodos , Control de Infecciones/organización & administración , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/prevención & control , Salud Laboral , Pandemias/prevención & control , Equipo de Protección Personal/estadística & datos numéricos , Neumonía Viral/prevención & control , COVID-19 , Prueba de COVID-19 , Técnicas de Laboratorio Clínico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/diagnóstico , Infecciones por Coronavirus/economía , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Técnicas de Apoyo para la Decisión , Femenino , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Transmisión de Enfermedad Infecciosa de Paciente a Profesional/estadística & datos numéricos , Trabajo de Parto , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Pandemias/economía , Pandemias/estadística & datos numéricos , Equipo de Protección Personal/economía , Neumonía Viral/economía , Neumonía Viral/epidemiología , Embarazo , Estados Unidos
4.
Am J Obstet Gynecol ; 221(4): 349.e1-349.e9, 2019 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31238038

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways provide a multidisciplinary, evidence-based approach to the care of surgical patients. They have been shown to decrease postoperative length of stay and cost in several surgical subspecialties, including gynecology, but have not been well-studied in obstetric patients who undergo cesarean delivery. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for cesarean delivery would decrease postoperative length of stay and postoperative direct cost compared with historic controls. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study that compared postoperative length of stay and postoperative direct cost among women on the enhanced recovery after surgery cesarean delivery pathway in the first year of implementation (April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018; n=531) compared with historic controls (March 1, 2016, to February 28, 2017; n=661). Literature review informed the development of a prototype enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for cesarean delivery based on best practices from previous enhanced recovery after surgery experience in obstetrics (if available) or from other surgical disciplines if there were no available data for obstetrics. When there was not relevant published evidence from obstetrics, the taskforce used clinical experience and expert opinion to develop the pathway. The enhanced recovery after surgery cesarean delivery pathway included preadmission patient education and preoperative, intrapartum, and postoperative elements. Some components reflected standard obstetric care, and others were specific to the enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Women with pregestational diabetes mellitus who were receiving insulin therapy before pregnancy, women with preeclampsia with severe features, women with complex pain needs, and women with surgical complications were excluded from baseline and implementation groups. Enhanced recovery after surgery cesarean delivery pathway participation was determined by order set usage. Analysis was stratified for women who underwent planned (no labor; n=530) and unplanned (labor; n=662) cesarean delivery. Demographic and clinical characteristics, postoperative length of stay, postoperative direct cost, and readmission rates for the baseline and implementation groups were compared with the use of chi-square and t-tests. RESULTS: During the first year of implementation, 531 of 640 eligible women (83%) were included in the enhanced recovery after surgery cesarean delivery pathway. Body mass index was marginally higher in the baseline group for unplanned cesarean delivery (32.5±7.1 vs 31.4±6.7 kg/m2; P=.04). Otherwise there were no significant differences in demographic or maternal clinical characteristics between baseline or implementation groups overall or for planned or unplanned cesarean delivery. Compared with baseline, implementation of the enhanced recovery after surgery cesarean delivery pathway resulted in a significant decrease in postoperative length of stay by 7.8% or 4.86 hours overall (P<.001) and for both planned (P=.001) and unplanned (P=.002) cesarean delivery. Total postoperative direct costs decreased by 8.4% or $642.85 per patient overall (P<.001) and for both planned (P<.001) and unplanned (P<.001) cesarean delivery. There were no significant differences in readmission rates. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway for women who had planned or unplanned cesarean delivery was associated with significantly decreased postoperative length of stay and significant direct cost-savings per patient, without an increase in hospital readmissions. Given that cesarean delivery is 1 of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States, positively impacting postoperative length of stay and direct cost for women who undergo cesarean delivery could have significant healthcare cost-savings.


Asunto(s)
Cesárea/métodos , Recuperación Mejorada Después de la Cirugía , Costos de la Atención en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Adulto , Antiinflamatorios no Esteroideos/uso terapéutico , Cesárea/economía , Ambulación Precoz , Nutrición Enteral , Ayuno , Femenino , Fluidoterapia/métodos , Humanos , Ketorolaco/uso terapéutico , Dolor Postoperatorio/tratamiento farmacológico , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Atención Perioperativa , Fenilefrina/uso terapéutico , Embarazo , Desarrollo de Programa , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Estudios Retrospectivos , Vasoconstrictores/uso terapéutico
5.
Am J Perinatol ; 36(6): 588-593, 2019 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30231273

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify factors associated with a successful trial of labor (TOL) following two cesarean deliveries (CDs) in a contemporary North American cohort. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of term, nonanomalous, singleton, vertex pregnancies attempting a vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) following a history of two previous CDs in the United States from 2012 to 2014. Maternal and intrapartum factors were analyzed using chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 22,762 women met the inclusion criteria and underwent TOL. Of these, 12,192 (53.6%) had a VBAC. Using multivariate logistic regression, previous vaginal delivery and delivery at 40 to 41 weeks' gestation were associated with VBAC; maternal age, education, Medicaid insurance, non-Caucasian race/ethnicity, weight (overweight or obese), and gestational weight gain above the Institute of Medicine guidelines (adjusted odds ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-0.95) were associated with CD. Induction of labor did not affect the VBAC rate. CONCLUSION: For those desiring a TOL after two previous CDs, prospective studies are needed to assess interventions that limit gestational weight gain as well as the safety and optimal timing of an induction of labor. The decision to attempt a TOL should be guided by counseling regarding the risks, benefits, and chances of a successful TOL.


Asunto(s)
Ganancia de Peso Gestacional/fisiología , Esfuerzo de Parto , Parto Vaginal Después de Cesárea , Adulto , Cesárea Repetida , Distribución de Chi-Cuadrado , Femenino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Oportunidad Relativa , Sobrepeso , Embarazo , Estudios Retrospectivos , Factores de Riesgo
7.
J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care ; 13(6): 539-46, 2014.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25294854

RESUMEN

New York State (NYS) established guidelines for nonoccupational post-exposure prophylaxis (nPEP) to HIV in 1997. To assess current nPEP practices in NYS Emergency Departments (EDs), we electronically surveyed all ED directors in NYS, excluding Veterans' Affairs hospitals, about nPEP and linkage-to-care protocols in the EDs. Basic descriptive statistics were used for analysis. The response rate was 96% (184/191). Of respondents, 88% reported evaluating any patient with a possible nonoccupational exposure to HIV, in accordance with NYS guidelines. Of these, 83% provided the patient with a starter pack of medications, while 4% neither supplied nor prescribed antiretroviral drugs in the ED. Sexually transmitted infection screening, risk reduction counseling, and education about symptoms of acute HIV seroconversion were performed inconsistently, despite NYS guidelines recommendations. Only 22% of EDs confirmed whether linkage to follow-up care was successful. Most NYS EDs prescribe nPEP to appropriate patients but full implementation of guidelines remains incomplete.


Asunto(s)
Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Adhesión a Directriz , Infecciones por VIH/diagnóstico , Infecciones por VIH/prevención & control , Profilaxis Posexposición , Fármacos Anti-VIH/uso terapéutico , Consejo Dirigido , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud , Humanos , Tamizaje Masivo , New York , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Conducta de Reducción del Riesgo
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...