Reducing the cesarean delivery rates for breech presentations: administration of spinal anesthesia facilitates manipulation to cephalic presentation, but is it cost saving?

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research

Yossef Ezra³  Gary Ginsberg⁴  Yuval Weiss⁵  Paul S Spencer²  Carolyn F Weiniger¹ 

[1] Department of Anesthesia, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA;Department of Electrical Engineering & Computer Sciences, University of California at Berkley, California, USA;Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Ein Kerem, Jerusalem, Israel;Department of Medical Technology Assessment, Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel;Hospital administration, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Ein Kerem, Israel

关键词: Spinal;    Neuraxial blockade;    Costs;    Cesarean delivery;    Breech;   

Others  :  803462
DOI  :  10.1186/2045-4015-3-5

 received in 2013-08-27, accepted in 2014-01-09,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

External cephalic version (ECV) is infrequently performed and 98% of breech presenting fetuses are delivered surgically. Neuraxial analgesia can increase the success rate of ECV significantly, potentially reducing cesarean delivery rates for breech presentation. The current study aims to determine whether the additional cost to the hospital of spinal anesthesia for ECV is offset by cost savings generated by reduced cesarean delivery.

Methods

In our tertiary hospital, three variables manpower, disposables, and fixed costs were calculated for ECV, ECV plus anesthetic doses of spinal block, vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery. Total procedure costs were compared for possible delivery pathways. Manpower data were obtained from management payroll, fixed costs by calculating cost/lifetime usage rate and disposables were micro-costed in 2008, expressed in 2013 NIS.

Results

Cesarean delivery is the most expensive option, 11670.54 NIS and vaginal delivery following successful ECV under spinal block costs 5497.2 NIS. ECV alone costs 960.21 NIS, ECV plus spinal anesthesia costs 1386.97 NIS. The highest individual cost items for vaginal, cesarean delivery and ECV were for manpower. Expensive fixed costs for cesarean delivery included operating room trays and postnatal hospitalization (minimum 3 days). ECV with spinal block is cheaper due to lower expected cesarean delivery rate and its lower associated costs.

Conclusions

The additional cost of the spinal anesthesia is offset by increased success rates for the ECV procedure resulting in reduction in the cesarean delivery rate.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Weiniger et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Committee ACOG: on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 340. Mode of term singleton breech delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006, 108:235-237.
• [2]Green top guideline no. 20a: External cephalic version and reducing incidence of breech presentation. London: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 2010. http://www.rcog.org.uk webcite
• [3]Cho LY, Lau WL, Lo TK, Tang HH, Leung WC: Predictors of successful outcomes after external cephalic version in singleton term breech pregnancies: a nine year historical cohort history. Hong Kong Med J 2012, 18:11-19.
• [4]Main EK, Morton CH, Melsop K, Hopkins D, Giuliani G, Gould JB: Cesarean deliveries, outcomes, and opportunities for change in California: toward a public agenda for maternity care safety and quality. California Medical Quality Care Collaborative White Paper 2011. http://www.cmqcc.org/resources/2079/download webcite. Retrieved November 20 2012
• [5]Say R, Robson S, Thomson R: Helping pregnant women make better decisions: a systematic review of the benefits of patient decision aids in obstetrics. BMJ Open 2011, 21:1-e000261.
• [6]Vlemmix F, Kuitert M, Opmeer B, van der Post J, Mol BW, Kok M: Patient’s willingness to opt for external cephalic version. J Psychom Obstet Gynecol 2013, 34:15-21.
• [7]Tan JM, Macario A, Carvalho B, Druzin ML, El-Sayed YY: Cost-effectiveness of external cephalic version for term breech presentation. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2010, 10:3.
• [8]James M, Hunt K, Burr R, Johanson R: A decision analytical cost analysis of offering ECV in a UK district general hospital. BMC Health Serv Res 2001, 1:6.
• [9]Carvalho B, Tan JM, Macario A, El-Sayed YY, Sultan P: A cost analysis of neuraxial anesthesia to facilitate external cephalic version for breech presentation. Anesthesia Analgesia 2013, 117:155-159.
• [10]Jackson N, Paterson-Brown S: Physical sequelae of caesarean section. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynecol 2001, 15:49-61.
• [11]Kolas T, Saugstad OD, Daltveit AK, Nilsen ST, Oian P: Planned cesarean versus planned vaginal delivery at term: comparison of newborn infant outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006, 195:1538-1543.
• [12]Sultan P, Carvalho B: Neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version: a systematic review. Int J Obstet Anesth 2011, 20:299-306.
• [13]Goetzinger KR, Harper LM, Tuuli MG, Macones GA, Colditz GA: Effect of regional anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2011, 118:1137-1144.
• [14]Cluver C, Hofmeyr GJ, Gyte GM, Sinclair M: Interventions for helping to turn breech babies to head first presentation when using external cephalic version (Review) Cochrane Library. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, (1):CD000184.
• [15]Schorr SJ, Speights SE, Ross EL, Bofill JA, Rust OA, Norman PF, Morrison JC: A randomized trial of epidural anesthesia to improve external cephalic version success. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997, 177:1133-1137.
• [16]Mancuso KM, Yancey MK, Murphy JA, Markenson GR: Epidural analgesia for cephalic version: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 2000, 95:648-651.
• [17]Sullivan JT, Grobman WA, Bauchat JR, Scavone BM, Grouper S, McCarthy RJ, Wong CA: A randomized controlled trial of the effect of combined spinal-epidural analgesia on the success of external cephalic version for breech presentation. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009, 18:328-334.
• [18]Dugoff L, Stamm CA, Jones OW 3rd, Mohling SI, Hawkins JL: The effect of spinal anesthesia on the success rate of external cephalic version: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 1999, 93:345-349.
• [19]Weiniger CF, Ginosar Y, Elchalal U, Sela HY, Weissman C, Ezra Y: Randomized controlled trial of external cephalic version in term multiparae with or without spinal analgesia. Br J Anaesth 2010, 104:613-618.
• [20]Weiniger CF, Ginosar Y, Elchalal U, Sharon E, Nokrian M, Ezra Y: External cephalic version for breech presentation with or without spinal analgesia in nulliparous women at term: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 110:1343-1350.
• [21]Gottvall T, Gintsman C: External cephalic version of non-cephalic presentation; is it worthwhile? Acta Obstet et Gynecol Scand 2011, 90:1443-1445.
• [22]El Toukhy T, Ramadan G, Maidman D, Hanna L, Waterstone M: Impact of parity on obstetric and neonatal outcome of external cephalic version. J Obstet Gynaecol 2007, 27:580-584.
• [23]Bolaji I, Alabi Isama L: Central neuraxial blockade-assisted external cephalic version in reducing caesarean section rate: systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Int 2009, 2009:718981. Epub 2009 Dec 23
• [24]Gifford DS, Keeler E, Kahn KL: Reductions in cost and cesarean rate by routine use of external cephalic version: a decision analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1995, 85:930-936.
• [25]Lavoie A, Guay J: Anesthetic dose neuraxial blockade increases the success rate of external fetal version: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 2010, 57:408-414.
• [26]Bragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, van der Meulen JH: Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risks: cross sectional study. BMJ 2010, 341(c5056):1-8.
• [27]Menacker F, Hamilton BE: Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS Data Brief (2010. No 35). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db35.pdf webcite
• [28]Bogner G, Xu F, Simbrunner C, Bacherer A, Reisenberger K: Single-institute experience, management, success rate and outcome after external cephalic version at term. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2012, 116:134-137.
• [29]Lau TK, Lo KW, Rogers M: Pregnancy outcome after successful external cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997, 176:218-223.
• [30]Preston R, Jee R: Anesthesia-facilitated external cephalic version:pennywise or pound-foolish? Can J Anesth 2013, 60:6-13.
• [31]Reinhard J, Sanger N, Hanker L, Reichenbach L, Yuan J, Herrmann E, Louwen F: Delivery mode and neonatal outcome after a trial of external cephalic version (ECV): a prospective trial of vaginal breech versus cephalic delivery. Arch Gynecl Obstet 2013, 287:662-668.
• [32]Adams EK, Mauldin PD, Mauldin JG, Mayberry RM: Determining cost savings from attempted cephalic version in an inner city delivering population. Health Care Manag Sci 2000, 3:185-192.
• [33]Weissman C, Eidelman LA, Pizov R, Matot I, Klein N, Cohn R: The Israeli anesthesiology physician workforce. Isr Med Assoc J 2006, 8:255-260.
• [34]Changes to the CPT code set and medicare billing. http://www.obgmanagement.com/article_pages.asp?aid=10149 webcite retrieved April 13th 2013