Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2013
Conservative medical treatment of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a single center series and cost analysis study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Casals Gemma, Fábregues Francisco, Pavesi Marco, Arroyo Vicente, Balasch Juan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To present the results of a large series of patients with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome treated with a conservative medical approach and to compare the cost of this treatment with outpatient management with paracentesis according to published data.
DESIGN: Retrospective case series and cost analysis study using a decision-tree model.
SETTING: University hospital.
POPULATION: 496 consecutive patients with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome treated in our center from 1991 to 2010.
METHODS: All patients were treated with a conservative medical approach: (a) conservative outpatient approach: bed rest and a low-sodium diet or (b) hospitalized patients: bed rest, low-sodium diet, 20% albumin (60 g/day) and furosemide (20 mg/8 h).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of admissions, length of hospital stay and readmissions. Total cost of each therapeutic approach.
RESULTS: (a) Conservative outpatient approach (n = 377): all cases solved without admission. (b) Hospitalized patients with conservative medical treatment (n = 119): 2.8 days of mean hospital stay, no patient required paracentesis or admission to intensive care unit. Readmissions: Five patients (4.2%) resolved on restarting medical treatment. (c) Cost-analysis comparison: Cost of the outpatient approach with paracentesis: US$980 (range US$519-3557). Cost of conservative medical treatment: US$570 (range US$232-1640).
CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome can be safely managed with a conservative medical approach, which was not found to be more expensive than outpatient management with paracentesis.
DESIGN: Retrospective case series and cost analysis study using a decision-tree model.
SETTING: University hospital.
POPULATION: 496 consecutive patients with ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome treated in our center from 1991 to 2010.
METHODS: All patients were treated with a conservative medical approach: (a) conservative outpatient approach: bed rest and a low-sodium diet or (b) hospitalized patients: bed rest, low-sodium diet, 20% albumin (60 g/day) and furosemide (20 mg/8 h).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of admissions, length of hospital stay and readmissions. Total cost of each therapeutic approach.
RESULTS: (a) Conservative outpatient approach (n = 377): all cases solved without admission. (b) Hospitalized patients with conservative medical treatment (n = 119): 2.8 days of mean hospital stay, no patient required paracentesis or admission to intensive care unit. Readmissions: Five patients (4.2%) resolved on restarting medical treatment. (c) Cost-analysis comparison: Cost of the outpatient approach with paracentesis: US$980 (range US$519-3557). Cost of conservative medical treatment: US$570 (range US$232-1640).
CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome can be safely managed with a conservative medical approach, which was not found to be more expensive than outpatient management with paracentesis.