We have located links that may give you full text access.
Universal Fetal Echocardiography for Pregestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.
Obstetrics and Gynecology 2024 Februrary 30
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of universal fetal echocardiogram for patients with pregestational diabetes mellitus by first-trimester hemoglobin A1c (Hb A1c) level.
METHODS: We developed a cost-effectiveness model comparing two strategies of screening for critical fetal congenital heart disease among patients with diabetes: universal fetal echocardiogram and fetal echocardiogram only after abnormal findings on detailed anatomy ultrasonogram. We excluded ventricular septal defect, atrial septal defects, and bicuspid aortic valve from the definition of critical fetal congenital heart disease. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios: first-trimester Hb A1c lower than 6.5%, Hb A1c 6.5-9.0%, and Hb A1c higher than 9.0%. Primary outcomes included fetal death, neonatal death, and false-positive and false-negative results. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariable sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the drivers of the model.
RESULTS: Universal fetal echocardiogram is not cost effective except for when first-trimester Hb A1c level is higher than 9.0% (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $638,100, $223,693, and $67,697 for Hb A1c lower than 6.5%, 6.5-9.0%, and higher than 9.0%, respectively). The models are sensitive to changes in the probability of congenital heart disease at a given Hb A1c level, as well as the cost of neonatal transfer to a higher level of care. Universal fetal echocardiogram became both cost saving and more effective when the probability of congenital heart disease reached 14.48% (15.4 times the baseline risk). In the Monte Carlo simulation, universal fetal echocardiogram is cost effective in 22.7%, 48.6%, and 62.3% of scenarios for each of the three models, respectively.
CONCLUSION: For pregnant patients with first-trimester Hb A1c levels lower than 6.5%, universal fetal echocardiogram was not cost effective, whereas, for those with first-trimester Hb A1c levels higher than 9.0%, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective. For those with intermediate Hb A1c levels, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective in about 50% of cases; therefore, clinical judgment based on individual patient values, willingness to pay to detect congenital heart disease, and resource availability needs to be considered.
METHODS: We developed a cost-effectiveness model comparing two strategies of screening for critical fetal congenital heart disease among patients with diabetes: universal fetal echocardiogram and fetal echocardiogram only after abnormal findings on detailed anatomy ultrasonogram. We excluded ventricular septal defect, atrial septal defects, and bicuspid aortic valve from the definition of critical fetal congenital heart disease. Probabilities and costs were derived from the literature. We used individual models to evaluate different scenarios: first-trimester Hb A1c lower than 6.5%, Hb A1c 6.5-9.0%, and Hb A1c higher than 9.0%. Primary outcomes included fetal death, neonatal death, and false-positive and false-negative results. A cost-effectiveness threshold was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariable sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate the drivers of the model.
RESULTS: Universal fetal echocardiogram is not cost effective except for when first-trimester Hb A1c level is higher than 9.0% (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $638,100, $223,693, and $67,697 for Hb A1c lower than 6.5%, 6.5-9.0%, and higher than 9.0%, respectively). The models are sensitive to changes in the probability of congenital heart disease at a given Hb A1c level, as well as the cost of neonatal transfer to a higher level of care. Universal fetal echocardiogram became both cost saving and more effective when the probability of congenital heart disease reached 14.48% (15.4 times the baseline risk). In the Monte Carlo simulation, universal fetal echocardiogram is cost effective in 22.7%, 48.6%, and 62.3% of scenarios for each of the three models, respectively.
CONCLUSION: For pregnant patients with first-trimester Hb A1c levels lower than 6.5%, universal fetal echocardiogram was not cost effective, whereas, for those with first-trimester Hb A1c levels higher than 9.0%, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective. For those with intermediate Hb A1c levels, universal fetal echocardiogram was cost effective in about 50% of cases; therefore, clinical judgment based on individual patient values, willingness to pay to detect congenital heart disease, and resource availability needs to be considered.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app