Cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices for the treatment of postpartum hemorrhage: A systematic review.
Cost
Cost-effectiveness
Postpartum hemorrhage
Uterine balloon tamponade
Uterine tamponade
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2020
Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
19
05
2020
revised:
28
07
2020
accepted:
21
09
2020
pubmed:
26
9
2020
medline:
11
3
2021
entrez:
25
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Uterine tamponade is widely promoted for treating refractory postpartum hemorrhage (PPH); however, its cost-effectiveness may vary depending on unit costs and setting. To review available data on cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices when used for PPH treatment. PubMed and EMBASE were searched (1980 to January 2020), as well as the National Health Services Economic Evaluation database from inception (1995) to March 2015. Eligible studies were any type of economic evaluation, or effectiveness studies that provided cost or economic data. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Eleven studies using a range of devices (condom catheter, uterine suction devices, Bakri, Inpress, Ellavi) were identified. Cost of condom catheter devices or kits ranged from US$0.64 to US$6, whereas purpose-designed device costs were up to US$400. Two studies that took a health system perspective assessed the cost-effectiveness of using uterine balloon tamponade and suggested that it was highly cost-effective because of the low cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted, although both used effect estimates from case series. Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices was limited and not generalizable. Rigorous economic evaluations based on updated effect estimates are needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Uterine tamponade is widely promoted for treating refractory postpartum hemorrhage (PPH); however, its cost-effectiveness may vary depending on unit costs and setting.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To review available data on cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices when used for PPH treatment.
SEARCH STRATEGY
METHODS
PubMed and EMBASE were searched (1980 to January 2020), as well as the National Health Services Economic Evaluation database from inception (1995) to March 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
METHODS
Eligible studies were any type of economic evaluation, or effectiveness studies that provided cost or economic data.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed quality.
MAIN RESULTS
RESULTS
Eleven studies using a range of devices (condom catheter, uterine suction devices, Bakri, Inpress, Ellavi) were identified. Cost of condom catheter devices or kits ranged from US$0.64 to US$6, whereas purpose-designed device costs were up to US$400. Two studies that took a health system perspective assessed the cost-effectiveness of using uterine balloon tamponade and suggested that it was highly cost-effective because of the low cost per disability-adjusted life-year averted, although both used effect estimates from case series.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence on the cost-effectiveness of uterine tamponade devices was limited and not generalizable. Rigorous economic evaluations based on updated effect estimates are needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32976634
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.13393
pmc: PMC7756424
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
333-340Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : United States Agency of International Development
Organisme : WHO
Organisme : UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Program of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP)
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The World Health Organization.
Références
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Nov 5;3(6):e000964
pubmed: 30483412
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun;2(6):e323-33
pubmed: 25103301
PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097
pubmed: 19621072
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Sep;294(3):511-7
pubmed: 26781261
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018 Mar;31(6):747-753
pubmed: 28274173
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Nov 13;17(1):374
pubmed: 29132342
Lancet. 2013 May 18;381(9879):1747-55
pubmed: 23683641
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Jul;146(1):56-64
pubmed: 31049950
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jul;128(1):33-6
pubmed: 27275795
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Aug 19;4(4):e001683
pubmed: 31478014
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020 Mar;148(3):290-299
pubmed: 31709527
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Apr;222(4):293.e1-293.e52
pubmed: 31917139
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(8):849-55
pubmed: 18704777
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Dec;22(6):999-1012
pubmed: 18819848
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 Sep;146(3):339-343
pubmed: 31206652
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2019 Oct;69(Suppl 2):133-141
pubmed: 31686746
BMJ Open. 2017 Sep 1;7(9):e016590
pubmed: 28864699
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017 May;137(2):185-191
pubmed: 28190262
BJOG. 2019 Dec;126(13):1612-1621
pubmed: 31410966
MedGenMed. 2003 Sep 11;5(3):38
pubmed: 14600674
Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2007 Jan;1(1):53-9
pubmed: 21475452
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005 Spring;21(2):240-5
pubmed: 15921065
BJOG. 2016 Aug;123(9):1532-40
pubmed: 26223284
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2018 Sep;142(3):371-373
pubmed: 29779208