Search

Objective: To assess the economic consequences of immediate delivery compared with expectant monitoring in women with preterm non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (HYPITAT-II).Setting: Obstetric departments of seven academic hospitals and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands.Population: Women diagnosed with non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 340/7 and 370/7  weeks of gestation, randomly allocated to either immediate delivery or expectant monitoring.Methods: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective until final maternal and neonatal discharge.Main Outcome Measures: Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of respiratory distress syndrome, defined as the need for supplemental oxygen for >24 hours combined with radiographic findings typical for respiratory distress syndrome. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective until maternal and neonatal discharge.Results: The average costs of immediate delivery (n = 352) were €10 245 versus €9563 for expectant monitoring (n = 351), with an average difference of €682 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI -€618 to €2126). This 7% difference predominantly originated from the neonatal admissions, which were €5672 in the immediate delivery arm and €3929 in the expectant monitoring arm.Conclusion: In women with mild hypertensive disorders between 340/7 and 370/7  weeks of gestation, immediate delivery is more costly than expectant monitoring as a result of differences in neonatal admissions. These findings support expectant monitoring, as the clinical outcomes of the trial demonstrated that expectant monitoring reduced respiratory distress syndrome for a slightly increased risk of maternal complications.Tweetable Abstract: Expectant management in preterm hypertensive disorders is less costly compared with immediate delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the influence of a national prenatal screening program on category 1 (lethal anomalies) late terminations of pregnancy (LTOP)., Methods: In this population-based retrospective cohort study, we included all category 1 LTOPs from 2004 to 2015 in the Netherlands. The number of LTOPs before and after the introduction of the program was compared as well as the diagnostic process and factors contributing to LTOP., Results: In total, 97 LTOPs were reported. After the introduction of the program, the number of LTOPs decreased from 17 per year to 5 per year on average. The number of cases in which the diagnostic process started with obstetric indications decreased from 55% to 17% (p < 0.01) and the number of cases detected by routine screening increased from 11% to 52% (p < 0.01). Four factors still contributed to LTOP after the introduction of the screening program: diagnostic or parental delay (40%), absence of screening (24%), false negative results of prior screening (14%) and late onset of disease (12%)., Conclusion: The number of LTOPs decreased after the introduction of the screening program. At present, the diagnostic process is mostly screening driven. Parental- and diagnostic delay is still an important factor that contributes to LTOP., (© 2023 The Authors. Prenatal Diagnosis published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Preterm birth is in quantity and in severity the most important topic in obstetric care in the developed world. Progestogens and cervical pessaries have been studied as potential preventive treatments with conflicting results. So far, no study has compared both treatments., Methods/design: The Quadruple P study aims to compare the efficacy of vaginal progesterone and cervical pessary in the prevention of adverse perinatal outcome associated with preterm birth in asymptomatic women with a short cervix, in singleton and multiple pregnancies separately. It is a nationwide open-label multicentre randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a superiority design and will be accompanied by an economic analysis. Pregnant women undergoing the routine anomaly scan will be offered cervical length measurement between 18 and 22 weeks in a singleton and at 16-22 weeks in a multiple pregnancy. Women with a short cervix, defined as less than, or equal to 35 mm in a singleton and less than 38 mm in a multiple pregnancy, will be invited to participate in the study. Eligible women will be randomly allocated to receive either progesterone or a cervical pessary. Following randomization, the silicone cervical pessary will be placed during vaginal examination or 200 mg progesterone capsules will be daily self-administered vaginally. Both interventions will be continued until 36 weeks gestation or until delivery, whichever comes first. Primary outcome will be composite adverse perinatal outcome of perinatal mortality and perinatal morbidity including bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage grade III and IV, periventricular leukomalacia higher than grade I, necrotizing enterocolitis higher than stage I, Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) or culture proven sepsis. These outcomes will be measured up until 10 weeks after the expected due date. Secondary outcomes will be, among others, time to delivery, preterm birth rate before 28, 32, 34 and 37 weeks, admission to neonatal intensive care unit, maternal morbidity, maternal admission days for threatened preterm labour and costs., Discussion: This trial will provide evidence on whether vaginal progesterone or a cervical pessary is more effective in decreasing adverse perinatal outcome in both singletons and multiples., Trial Registration: Trial registration number: NTR 4414 . Date of registration January 29th 2014.

Objective: To assess the economic consequences of immediate delivery compared with expectant monitoring in women with preterm non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy., Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial (HYPITAT-II)., Setting: Obstetric departments of seven academic hospitals and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands., Population: Women diagnosed with non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 0/7 and 37 0/7  weeks of gestation, randomly allocated to either immediate delivery or expectant monitoring., Methods: A trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective until final maternal and neonatal discharge., Main Outcome Measures: Health outcomes were expressed as the prevalence of respiratory distress syndrome, defined as the need for supplemental oxygen for >24 hours combined with radiographic findings typical for respiratory distress syndrome. Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective until maternal and neonatal discharge., Results: The average costs of immediate delivery (n = 352) were €10 245 versus €9563 for expectant monitoring (n = 351), with an average difference of €682 (95% confidence interval, 95% CI -€618 to €2126). This 7% difference predominantly originated from the neonatal admissions, which were €5672 in the immediate delivery arm and €3929 in the expectant monitoring arm., Conclusion: In women with mild hypertensive disorders between 34 0/7 and 37 0/7  weeks of gestation, immediate delivery is more costly than expectant monitoring as a result of differences in neonatal admissions. These findings support expectant monitoring, as the clinical outcomes of the trial demonstrated that expectant monitoring reduced respiratory distress syndrome for a slightly increased risk of maternal complications., Tweetable Abstract: Expectant management in preterm hypertensive disorders is less costly compared with immediate delivery., (© 2016 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.)