Preterm birth in singleton and multiple pregnancies: evaluation of costs and perinatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate costs of preterm birth in singleton and multiple pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: Cost analysis based on data from a prospective cohort study and three multicentre randomised controlled trials (2006-2012) in a Dutch nationwide consortium for women's health research. Women with preterm birth before 37 completed weeks were included for analysis. Direct costs were estimated from a health care perspective, from delivery until discharge or decease of the neonates. Costs and adverse perinatal outcome per pregnancy were measured. Adverse perinatal outcome comprised both perinatal mortality and a composite of neonatal morbidity defined as chronic lung disease, intraventricular haemorrhage≥grade 2, periventricular leukomalacia≥grade 1, proven sepsis or necrotising enterocolitis. Using a moving average technique covering three weeks per measurement, costs and adverse perinatal outcome per woman delivering for every week between 24 and 37 weeks are reported. RESULTS: Data of 2802 women were available of whom 1503 (53.6%) had a preterm birth; 501 in 1090 singleton (46%) and 1002 in 1712 multiple pregnancies (58.5%). The most frequent perinatal outcomes were perinatal mortality, chronic lung disease and sepsis. For singleton pregnancies the peak of total costs was at 25 weeks (€88,052 per delivery), compared to 27 weeks for multiple pregnancies (€169,571 per delivery). The total costs declined rapidly with increasing duration of pregnancy. Major cost drivers were length of stay on the NICU and airway treatments. The peaks seen in costs paralleled with the prevalence of adverse perinatal outcome. CONCLUSIONS: These data can be used to elaborate on the impact of preterm birth in case only data are available on duration of pregnancy.

Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is a common obstetric procedure. At present, different methods are used for induction of labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. Recently, we showed that in term women with an unfavorable cervix the use of a Foley catheter in comparison with vaginal Prostaglandin E2 gel, results in a comparable vaginal delivery rate. A meta-analysis on the subject indicated lower rates of hyperstimulation, and probably as a sequel fewer cases of postpartum haemorrhage. Misoprostol (PgE1) is another type of prostaglandin frequently used for labour induction, recommended by the international federation of gynaecology and obstetrics (FIGO). Misoprostol can be administered by vaginal, rectal and oral route. There is evidence that oral administration results in less asphyxia and hyperstimulation than vaginal administration. At present, valid comparisons between oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are lacking. Therefore, we propose a randomised controlled trial comparing Foley catheter to oral misoprostol in order to assess safety and cost-effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: We plan a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label clinical trial among term pregnant women with a vital singleton in cephalic presentation, unfavorable cervix, intact membranes and an indication for induction of labour. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated by a webbased randomisation system to transcervical Foley catheter or oral misoprostol (50 mcg every 4 hours). The primary outcome will be a composite of complications of uterine hyperstimulation, i.e. post partum haemorrhage and asphyxia. Secondary outcomes are mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity, costs and women's preference. Serious adverse events such as severe maternal or neonatal morbitity or mortality will be monitored and reported to an independent data safety monitory board. With a sample size of 1860 women we will be able to demonstrate a 5% non-inferiority of the Foley catheter as compared to misoprostol for the composite outcome. DISCUSSION: Worldwide, various methods are being used for labour induction. Results of the proposed trial will contribute to the answer which method of induction of labour is most safe, cost-effective, and patient friendly and will help to construct evidence based guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register NTR3466.