Citation Information :
Ekanayake CD, Thangasamy S, Pathmeswaran A, Herath R, Padumadasa S, Fernando S, Dias T, Wijesinghe P. Vaginal Birth after Cesarean Section vs Elective Repeat Cesarean Section: A Cost-consequence Analysis. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2021; 13 (1):38-43.
Aim: There is limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of vaginal birth after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean section. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes and costs of vaginal birth after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean section.
Materials and methods: A cost-consequence study was done from April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019. Women admitted for delivery with one previous cesarean section were selected. Exclusion criteria were: multiple gestations, placenta previa, morbidly adherent placenta, birth weight <2.5 kg or >4 kg, and patients undergoing emergency cesarean section for antepartum emergencies. The outcomes and costs of vaginal birth after cesarean section vs elective repeat cesarean section were compared.
Results: The vaginal birth after cesarean section was successful in 34 (50.7%) cases. There was no difference in median postpartum hospital stay between vaginal birth after cesarean section (n = 67)[2 (1–3) days] and elective repeat cesarean section (n = 158) [2 (2–2.25) days] (p = 0.15). There was no significant difference in total costs between vaginal birth after cesarean section and elective repeat cesarean section [USD 476 (420–566) vs USD 470 (452–494), p = 0.78].
The direct cost of the vaginal birth after cesarean section successful group (n = 34) was USD 427 (361–462) vs failed vaginal birth after cesarean section group (n = 32) USD 505 (476–716) (p <0.001). There was a significant difference in postpartum hospital stay between successful vaginal birth after cesarean section [2 (1–3) days], failed vaginal birth after cesarean section [2 (2–3.75) days], and elective repeat cesarean section [2 (2–2.25) days] (p < 0.01).
Conclusion: The absence of a significant difference in postpartum hospital stay and cost between vaginal birth after cesarean section and elective repeat cesarean section raises serious clinical concerns with possible implications for health policy stakeholders.
Gibbons L, Belizán JM, Lauer JA, et al. The global numbers and costs of additionally needed and unnecessary caesarean sections performed per year: overuse as a barrier to universal coverage. World Health Report2010; Background Paper, 30.
Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, et al. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990–2014. PLoS One 2016;11(2):e0148343. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0148343.
Menacker F, Declercq E, Macdorman MF. Cesarean delivery: background, trends, and epidemiology. SeminPerinatol2006;30(5):235–241. DOI: 10.1053/j.semperi.2006.07.002.
Family Health Bureau. Indicators [FHB website]. 2018. http://fhb.health.gov.lk/index.php/en/statistics. Accessed March 31, 2020.
Gunasekara PC, Wijesinghe PS, Goonewardene I.The caesarean section rate is rising. Ceylon Med J2001;46(4):147–150. DOI: 10.4038/cmj.v46i4.6466.
Luce A, Cash M, Hundley V, et al. “Is it realistic?” the portrayal of pregnancy and childbirth in the media. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016;16:40. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-016-0827-x.
Ji H, Jiang H, Yang L, et al. Factors contributing to the rapid rise of caesarean section: a prospective study of primiparous Chinese women in Shanghai. BMJ Open 2015;5(11):e008994. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008994.
Feng XL, Xu L, Guo Y, et al. Factors influencing rising caesarean section rates in China between 1988 and 2008. Bull World Health Organ 2012;90(1):30–39. DOI: 10.2471/BLT.11.090399.
Mittal S, Pardeshi S, Mayadeo N, et al. Trends in caesarean delivery: rate and indications. J ObstetGynaecol India 2014;64(4):251–254. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-013-0491-2.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Green top guideline no. 45. (October 2015). Birth after previous caesarean birth.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 205: vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2019;133(2):e110–e127. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003078.
Goonewardene M,Peiris M, Kariyawasam S, et al.Analysis of high caesarean section rates—the second step after audits using the Ten Group Classification System. Ceylon Med J2017;62(3):149–158. DOI: 10.4038/cmj.v62i3.8518.
Scott JR. Intrapartum management of trial of labour after caesarean delivery: evidence and experience. BJOG 2014;121(2):157–162. DOI:10.1111/1471-0528.12449.
Fawsitt CG, Bourke J, Greene RA, et al. At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labor after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery. PLoS One 2013;8(3):e58577. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0058577.
Fobelets M, Beeckman K, Faron G, et al. Vaginal birth after caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery after one previous caesarean section: a cost-effectiveness analysis in four European countries. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:92. DOI:10.1186/s12884-018-1720-6.
Rogers AJ, Rogers NG, Kilgore ML, et al. Economic evaluations comparing a trial of labor with an elective repeat cesarean delivery: a systematic review. Value Health 2017;20:163–173. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2016.08.738.
Ekanayake C, Pathmeswaran A, Kularatna S, et al. Challenges of costing a surgical procedure in a lower–middle-income country. World J Surg 2019;43(1):52–59. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-018-4773-9.
Campbell Collaboration. CCEMG—EPPI-Centre Cost Converter [University College London Website]. 2019. https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/costconversion/.
Friedman AM, Ananth CV, Chen L, et al. An economic analysis of trial of labor after cesarean delivery. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29(7):1030–1035. DOI:10.3109/14767058.2015.1035250.
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (March 2019). Birth after previous caesarean section.
Devkare V, Agarwal N, Gayakwad N, et al. Maternal and fetal outcome of VBAC after first previous LSCS in a tertiary care teaching hospital of Western India. Int J Curr Res Med Sci 2017;3(7):8–17.DOI: 10.22192/ijcrms.2017.03.07.002.
Krell RW, Girotti ME, Dimick JB. Extended length of stay after surgery: complications, inefficient practice, or sick patients?JAMA Surg 2014;149(8):815–820. DOI:10.1001/jamasurg.2014.629.
Mirteymouri M, Ayati S, Pourali L, et al. Evaluation of maternal-neonatal outcomes in vaginal birth after cesarean delivery referred to maternity of academic hospitals. J Family Reprod Health 2016;10(4):206–210.
Gilbert SA, Grobman WA, Landon MB, et al. Lifetime cost-effectiveness of trial of labor after cesarean in the United States. Value Health 2013;16(6):953–964. DOI:10.1016/j.jval.2013.06.014.
Drummond M, Sculpher M, Torrance G, et al. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programme. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
Gray A, Clarke P, Wolstenholme J, et al. Applied Methods of Cost-effectiveness Analysis in Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
Chung A, Macario A, El-Sayed YY, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a trial of labor after previous caesarean. ObstetGynecol 2001;97(6):932–941. DOI:10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01355-2.
Kalisa R, Rulisa S, van Roosmalen J, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcome after previous caesarean section in rural Rwanda. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017;17(1):272. DOI:10.1186/s12884-017-1467-5.
Housseine N, Punt MC, Browne JL, et al. Delphi consensus statement on intrapartum fetal monitoring in low-resource settings. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2019;146(1):8–16. DOI:10.1002/ijgo.12724.
Booth CM, Tannock IF. Randomised controlled trials and population-based observational research: partners in the evolution of medical evidence. Br J Cancer 2014;110(3):551–555. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2013.725.