Should all pregnant diabetic women undergo a fetal echocardiography? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four screening strategies

Anthony O. Odibo, Kara M. Coassolo, David M. Stamilio, Serdar Ural, George A. Macones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To determine if a policy of universal fetal echocardiography for all pregnant diabetic women is cost-effective as a screening tool for congenital heart defects. Study Design: Using a decision-analysis model, we compared the cost-effectiveness of four screening strategies: (1) none-no ultrasound is performed; (2) selective fetal echocardiography after abnormal detailed anatomic survey; (3) fetal echocardiography for only high hemoglobin AIC, and (4) universal fetal echocardiography for all diabetics. The sensitivity and specificity for each strategy were derived by literature search. The analysis was from a societal perspective using a willingness-to-pay threshold ($50000) and a theoretic cohort of 40 000 pregnant diabetics. Costs included costs of tests and the costs of complications and of raising a child with a cardiac defect. Outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained for each congenital heart defect prevented by each strategy and the number of congenital heart defects detected. One-way, multiway and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Compared with the other strategies, selective fetal echocardiography after abnormal detailed anatomic survey costs less per QALY gained for cardiac defect screening. Although universal fetal echocardiography was associated with a higher detection rate for cardiac defects, it was more costly. The sensitivity analyses revealed a robust model over a wide range of values. Conclusion: Under the baseline assumptions, selective fetal echocardiography after an abnormal detailed anatomic survey is more cost-effective compared with universal fetal echocardiography as a screening strategy for cardiac defects in pregnant diabetics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)39-44
Number of pages6
JournalPrenatal Diagnosis
Volume26
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2006

Fingerprint

Cost-Benefit Analysis
Echocardiography
Pregnant Women
Costs and Cost Analysis
Congenital Heart Defects
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Decision Support Techniques
Hemoglobins
Sensitivity and Specificity
Surveys and Questionnaires

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Genetics(clinical)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Odibo, Anthony O. ; Coassolo, Kara M. ; Stamilio, David M. ; Ural, Serdar ; Macones, George A. / Should all pregnant diabetic women undergo a fetal echocardiography? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four screening strategies. In: Prenatal Diagnosis. 2006 ; Vol. 26, No. 1. pp. 39-44.
@article{6735417bda334a79b18b45097d0c557e,
title = "Should all pregnant diabetic women undergo a fetal echocardiography? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four screening strategies",
abstract = "Objective: To determine if a policy of universal fetal echocardiography for all pregnant diabetic women is cost-effective as a screening tool for congenital heart defects. Study Design: Using a decision-analysis model, we compared the cost-effectiveness of four screening strategies: (1) none-no ultrasound is performed; (2) selective fetal echocardiography after abnormal detailed anatomic survey; (3) fetal echocardiography for only high hemoglobin AIC, and (4) universal fetal echocardiography for all diabetics. The sensitivity and specificity for each strategy were derived by literature search. The analysis was from a societal perspective using a willingness-to-pay threshold ($50000) and a theoretic cohort of 40 000 pregnant diabetics. Costs included costs of tests and the costs of complications and of raising a child with a cardiac defect. Outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained for each congenital heart defect prevented by each strategy and the number of congenital heart defects detected. One-way, multiway and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Compared with the other strategies, selective fetal echocardiography after abnormal detailed anatomic survey costs less per QALY gained for cardiac defect screening. Although universal fetal echocardiography was associated with a higher detection rate for cardiac defects, it was more costly. The sensitivity analyses revealed a robust model over a wide range of values. Conclusion: Under the baseline assumptions, selective fetal echocardiography after an abnormal detailed anatomic survey is more cost-effective compared with universal fetal echocardiography as a screening strategy for cardiac defects in pregnant diabetics.",
author = "Odibo, {Anthony O.} and Coassolo, {Kara M.} and Stamilio, {David M.} and Serdar Ural and Macones, {George A.}",
year = "2006",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/pd.1322",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "39--44",
journal = "Prenatal Diagnosis",
issn = "0197-3851",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1",

}

Should all pregnant diabetic women undergo a fetal echocardiography? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four screening strategies. / Odibo, Anthony O.; Coassolo, Kara M.; Stamilio, David M.; Ural, Serdar; Macones, George A.

In: Prenatal Diagnosis, Vol. 26, No. 1, 01.01.2006, p. 39-44.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should all pregnant diabetic women undergo a fetal echocardiography? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four screening strategies

AU - Odibo, Anthony O.

AU - Coassolo, Kara M.

AU - Stamilio, David M.

AU - Ural, Serdar

AU - Macones, George A.

PY - 2006/1/1

Y1 - 2006/1/1

N2 - Objective: To determine if a policy of universal fetal echocardiography for all pregnant diabetic women is cost-effective as a screening tool for congenital heart defects. Study Design: Using a decision-analysis model, we compared the cost-effectiveness of four screening strategies: (1) none-no ultrasound is performed; (2) selective fetal echocardiography after abnormal detailed anatomic survey; (3) fetal echocardiography for only high hemoglobin AIC, and (4) universal fetal echocardiography for all diabetics. The sensitivity and specificity for each strategy were derived by literature search. The analysis was from a societal perspective using a willingness-to-pay threshold ($50000) and a theoretic cohort of 40 000 pregnant diabetics. Costs included costs of tests and the costs of complications and of raising a child with a cardiac defect. Outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained for each congenital heart defect prevented by each strategy and the number of congenital heart defects detected. One-way, multiway and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Compared with the other strategies, selective fetal echocardiography after abnormal detailed anatomic survey costs less per QALY gained for cardiac defect screening. Although universal fetal echocardiography was associated with a higher detection rate for cardiac defects, it was more costly. The sensitivity analyses revealed a robust model over a wide range of values. Conclusion: Under the baseline assumptions, selective fetal echocardiography after an abnormal detailed anatomic survey is more cost-effective compared with universal fetal echocardiography as a screening strategy for cardiac defects in pregnant diabetics.

AB - Objective: To determine if a policy of universal fetal echocardiography for all pregnant diabetic women is cost-effective as a screening tool for congenital heart defects. Study Design: Using a decision-analysis model, we compared the cost-effectiveness of four screening strategies: (1) none-no ultrasound is performed; (2) selective fetal echocardiography after abnormal detailed anatomic survey; (3) fetal echocardiography for only high hemoglobin AIC, and (4) universal fetal echocardiography for all diabetics. The sensitivity and specificity for each strategy were derived by literature search. The analysis was from a societal perspective using a willingness-to-pay threshold ($50000) and a theoretic cohort of 40 000 pregnant diabetics. Costs included costs of tests and the costs of complications and of raising a child with a cardiac defect. Outcomes were reported as cost per quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained for each congenital heart defect prevented by each strategy and the number of congenital heart defects detected. One-way, multiway and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Compared with the other strategies, selective fetal echocardiography after abnormal detailed anatomic survey costs less per QALY gained for cardiac defect screening. Although universal fetal echocardiography was associated with a higher detection rate for cardiac defects, it was more costly. The sensitivity analyses revealed a robust model over a wide range of values. Conclusion: Under the baseline assumptions, selective fetal echocardiography after an abnormal detailed anatomic survey is more cost-effective compared with universal fetal echocardiography as a screening strategy for cardiac defects in pregnant diabetics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=31944450214&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=31944450214&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/pd.1322

DO - 10.1002/pd.1322

M3 - Article

C2 - 16378332

AN - SCOPUS:31944450214

VL - 26

SP - 39

EP - 44

JO - Prenatal Diagnosis

JF - Prenatal Diagnosis

SN - 0197-3851

IS - 1

ER -