The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2014
Resuscitation of neonates at 23 weeks' gestational age: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Partridge J Colin, Robertson Kathryn R, Rogers Elizabeth E, Landman Geri Ottaviano, Allen Allison J, Caughey Aaron B
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Resuscitation of infants at 23 weeks' gestation remains controversial; clinical practices vary. We sought to investigate the cost effectiveness of resuscitation of infants born 23 0/7-23 6/7 weeks' gestation.
DESIGN: Decision-analytic modeling comparing universal and selective resuscitation to non-resuscitation for 5176 live births at 23 weeks in a theoretic U.S. cohort. Estimates of death (77%) and disability (64-86%) were taken from the literature. Maternal and combined maternal-neonatal utilities were applied to discounted life expectancy to generate QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, discounting costs and QALYs. Main outcomes included number of survivors, their outcome status and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the three strategies. A cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY was utilized.
RESULTS: Universal resuscitation would save 1059 infants: 138 severely disabled, 413 moderately impaired and 508 without significant sequelae. Selective resuscitation would save 717 infants: 93 severely disabled, 279 moderately impaired and 343 without significant sequelae. For mothers, non-resuscitation is less expensive ($19.9 million) and more effective (127 844 mQALYs) than universal resuscitation ($1.2 billion; 126 574 mQALYs) or selective resuscitation ($845 million; 125 966 mQALYs). For neonates, both universal and selective resuscitation were cost-effective, resulting in 22 256 and 15 134 nQALYS, respectively, versus 247 nQALYs for non-resuscitation. In sensitivity analyses, universal resuscitation was cost-effective from a maternal perspective only at utilities for neonatal death <0.42. When analyzed from a maternal-neonatal perspective, universal resuscitation was cost-effective when the probability of neonatal death was <0.95.
CONCLUSIONS: Over wide ranges of probabilities for survival and disability, universal and selective resuscitation strategies were not cost-effective from a maternal perspective. Both strategies were cost-effective from a maternal-neonatal perspective. This study offers a metric for counseling and decision-making for extreme prematurity. Our results could support a more permissive response to parental requests for aggressive intervention at 23 weeks' gestation.
DESIGN: Decision-analytic modeling comparing universal and selective resuscitation to non-resuscitation for 5176 live births at 23 weeks in a theoretic U.S. cohort. Estimates of death (77%) and disability (64-86%) were taken from the literature. Maternal and combined maternal-neonatal utilities were applied to discounted life expectancy to generate QALYs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated, discounting costs and QALYs. Main outcomes included number of survivors, their outcome status and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the three strategies. A cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY was utilized.
RESULTS: Universal resuscitation would save 1059 infants: 138 severely disabled, 413 moderately impaired and 508 without significant sequelae. Selective resuscitation would save 717 infants: 93 severely disabled, 279 moderately impaired and 343 without significant sequelae. For mothers, non-resuscitation is less expensive ($19.9 million) and more effective (127 844 mQALYs) than universal resuscitation ($1.2 billion; 126 574 mQALYs) or selective resuscitation ($845 million; 125 966 mQALYs). For neonates, both universal and selective resuscitation were cost-effective, resulting in 22 256 and 15 134 nQALYS, respectively, versus 247 nQALYs for non-resuscitation. In sensitivity analyses, universal resuscitation was cost-effective from a maternal perspective only at utilities for neonatal death <0.42. When analyzed from a maternal-neonatal perspective, universal resuscitation was cost-effective when the probability of neonatal death was <0.95.
CONCLUSIONS: Over wide ranges of probabilities for survival and disability, universal and selective resuscitation strategies were not cost-effective from a maternal perspective. Both strategies were cost-effective from a maternal-neonatal perspective. This study offers a metric for counseling and decision-making for extreme prematurity. Our results could support a more permissive response to parental requests for aggressive intervention at 23 weeks' gestation.