• Kelly Yamasato, Bliss Kaneshiro, and Jennifer Salcedo.
• Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health, John A Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
• J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2015 Jul 1; 41 (7): 1023-31.

AimNeuraxial blockade (epidural or spinal anesthesia/analgesia) with external cephalic version increases the external cephalic version success rate. Hospitals and insurers may affect access to neuraxial blockade for external cephalic version, but the costs to these institutions remain largely unstudied. The objective of this study was to perform a cost analysis of neuraxial blockade use during external cephalic version from hospital and insurance payer perspectives. Secondarily, we estimated the effect of neuraxial blockade on cesarean delivery rates.MethodsA decision-analysis model was developed using costs and probabilities occurring prenatally through the delivery hospital admission. Model inputs were derived from the literature, national databases, and local supply costs. Univariate and bivariate sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to assess model robustness.ResultsNeuraxial blockade was cost saving to both hospitals ($30 per delivery) and insurers ($539 per delivery) using baseline estimates. From both perspectives, however, the model was sensitive to multiple variables. Monte Carlo simulation indicated neuraxial blockade to be more costly in approximately 50% of scenarios. The model demonstrated that routine use of neuraxial blockade during external cephalic version, compared to no neuraxial blockade, prevented 17 cesarean deliveries for every 100 external cephalic versions attempted.ConclusionsNeuraxial blockade is associated with minimal hospital and insurer cost changes in the setting of external cephalic version, while reducing the cesarean delivery rate.© 2015 The Authors. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research © 2015 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

44 keywords...

hide…