Moving preinduction cervical ripening to a lower acuity inpatient setting using the synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator: a cost-consequence analysis for the United States

References

• Sudhof L, Shah NT. In pursuit of value-based maternity care. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(3):541–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Partnership for Women & Families. Maternity care in the United States: we can – and must – do better. 2020. Available from: https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/health-care/maternity-care-in-the-united.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McDermott K, Elixhauser A, Sun R. Trends in hospital inpatient stays in the United States, 2005–2014 - statistical brief #225. US department of health and human services, agency for health care research and quality, healthcare cost and utilization project. 2017. Available from: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb225-Inpatient-US-Stays-Trends.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MLK, et al. National vital statistics reports births: final data for 2018. Natl Vital Statis Rep. 2019;68(13):1–47.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson KR. Cervical ripening and labor induction and augmentation, 5th edition. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2020;49(5):S1–S41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonagh M, Skelly AC, Hermesch A, et al. Cervical ripening in the outpatient setting: comparative effectiveness review no. 238 (prepared by the pacific northwest evidence-based practice center under contract no. 290-2015-00009-I for the agency for healthcare research and quality and the patient). Agency Healthc. Res Qual AHRQ Public. 2021;193–195.
   Google Scholar
• Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513–523.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clinical guidance for integration of the findings of the ARRIVE trial: labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. ACOG. Available from: https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/practice-advisory/articles/2018/08/clinical-guidance-for-integration-of-the-findings-of-the-arrive-trial
   Google Scholar
• Grobman WA, Sandoval G, Reddy UM, et al. Health resource utilization of labor induction versus expectant management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(4):369.e1–369.e11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Einerson BD, Nelson RE, Sandoval G, et al. Cost of elective labor induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(1):19–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ausbeck EB, Jauk VC, Xue Y, et al. Outpatient foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(3):597–606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saunders SJ, Saunders R, Wong T, et al. Out-of-hospital cervical ripening with a synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator may reduce hospital costs and cesarean sections in the United States-a cost-consequence analysis. Front Public Health. 2021;9:750.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saad AF, Villarreal J, Eid J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(3):275.e1-275–e9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Vaan MD, Ten Eikelder ML, Jozwiak M, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:CD001233.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(65):1–584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pierce S, Bakker R, Myers DA, et al. Clinical insights for cervical ripening and labor induction using prostaglandins. AJP Rep. 2018;8(4):e307–e314.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta JK, Maher A, Stubbs C, et al. A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor vs dinoprostone vaginal insert. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2022;4(4):100628.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gavara R, Saad AF, Wapner RJ, et al. Cervical ripening efficacy of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator compared with oral misoprostol at term: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139(6):1083–1091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saad AF, Gupta J, Hruban L, et al. Predictors of vaginal delivery after cervical ripening using a synthetic osmotic dilator. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;246:160–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, et al. Modeling good research practices - overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM modeling good research practices task force-1. Value Health. 2012;15(6):796–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sullivan SD, Mauskopf JA, Augustovski F, et al. Budget impact analysis - Principles of good practice: report of the ISPOR 2012 budget impact analysis good practice II task force. Value Heal. 2014;17(1):5–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson KR, Lyndon A, Spetz J, et al. Adherence to the AWHONN staffing guidelines as perceived by labor nurses. Nurs Womens Health. 2019;23(3):217–223.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Micromedex IBM. (R) [database online]. RED book online. Truven health analytics/IBM Watson gealth. 2021. https://www.micromedexsolutions.com
   Google Scholar
• Son SL, Benson AE, Hart Hayes E, et al. Outpatient cervical ripening: a cost-minimization and threshold analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2020;37(3):245–251.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ACOG Education & Events. Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labor. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). 2021. https://www.acog.org/education-and-events/creog/curriculum-resources/cases-in-high-value-care/inpatient-versus-outpatient-induction-of-labor
   Google Scholar
• Palmer PP, Lemus B, DiDonato K, et al. Cost of delivering intraveneous opioid analgesia in emergency departments in the United States. Value Heal. 2016;19(3):A246–A247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hehir MP, Ananth CV, Siddiq Z, et al. Cesarean delivery in the United States 2005 through 2014: a population-based analysis using the robson ten group classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(1):105.e1–105.e11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller H, Goetzl L, Wing DA, et al. Optimising daytime deliveries when inducing labour using prostaglandin vaginal inserts. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(4):517–522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ogbonna BN, Cabais F, Shabban M. Dinoprostone intracervical gel for cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;87(1):40–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haas DM, Daggy J, Flannery KM, et al. A comparison of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for cervical ripening in women for labor induction at term (the IMPROVE trial): a triple-masked randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(3):259.e1-259–259.e16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, et al. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: a randomized controlled trial HHS public access author manuscript conclusion-after censoring for cesarean and adjusting for parity, misoprostol-cervical foley resulted in twice the chance of deliver. Obs. Gynecol. 2016;128(6):1357–1364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mendez-Figueroa H, Bicocca MJ, Gupta M, et al. Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 versus E2: a comparison of outcomes. J Perinatol. 2021;41(4):726–735.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dorr ML, Pierson RC, Daggy J, et al. Buccal versus vaginal misoprostol for term induction of labor: a retrospective cohort study. Am J Perinatol. 2019;36(7):765–772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vesco KK, Ferrante S, Chen Y, et al. Costs of severe maternal morbidity during pregnancy in US commercially insured and medicaid populations: an observational study. Matern Child Health J. 2020;24(1):30–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar