PDF icon Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e2878-e2885
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1776352
Original Article

Economic Analysis of Induction versus Elective Cesarean in Term Nulliparas with Supermorbid Obesity

Lea Nehme
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Rebecca Horgan 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Jerri Waller
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Priyanka Kumar
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia
,
Carole Barake
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
,
Jim C. Huang
4   Department of Business Management, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
,
George Saade
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Tetsuya Kawakita
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available ateRefHebammen
   Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Objective We sought to evaluate the economic benefit of the induction of labor compared with elective cesarean delivery in individuals with supermorbid obesity (body mass index 60 kg/m2 or greater) at term.

Study Design We developed an economic analysis model to compare induction of labor with elective cesarean delivery in nulliparous individuals with supermorbid obesity at term. The primary outcome was the total cost per strategy from a health system perspective with elective cesarean delivery as a reference group. Pregnancy outcomes for the index and subsequent pregnancies were considered. When available, probabilities of pregnancy outcomes were extracted from our institutions. Rare pregnancy outcomes, relative risks, and costs were derived from the literature. All costs in this analysis were inflated to 2022 USD (U.S. dollar). To determine the robustness of the decision model, we conducted one-way sensitivity analyses by changing point estimates of variables. We then performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation repeating 1,000 times to test the robustness of the results in the setting of simultaneous changes in probabilities, relative risks, and costs.

Results In the base-case analysis, assuming that 72.7% of nulliparous individuals undergoing induction of labor would have a cesarean delivery, induction of labor would cost $41,084 compared with $40,742 for elective cesarean delivery, resulting in a higher cost of $342 per nulliparous individuals with supermorbid obesity. In a sensitivity analysis, we found that induction of labor compared with elective cesarean is less economical if the probability of cesarean delivery after induction of labor exceeds 71%. Monte Carlo simulation suggests that elective cesarean delivery was the preferred cost-beneficial strategy with a frequency of 53.5%.

Conclusion: Among our patient population, induction of labor was less economical compared with elective cesarean delivery at term for nulliparous individuals with supermorbid obesity.

Key Points

  • The prevalence of obesity in the United States continues to rise.

  • Morbid obesity compared with normal weight is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

  • Induction of labor was less economical compared with elective cesarean delivery at term for nulliparous individuals.

Keywords

obesity - induction of labor - cesarean delivery - economic analysis

Note

This paper was presented as a poster at the SMFM 43rd Annual Meeting-The pregnancy meeting, San Francisco, CA (February 2023).


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 30 July 2023

Accepted: 25 September 2023

Article published online:
10 November 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA