Abstract
Purpose: The number of published studies comparing cost-effectiveness of tubal surgery and IVF treatment is limited, in part because of the difficulties of conducting randomized trials, given that IVF is now a clinically accepted treatment and the decision to offer surgery or IVF is often dictated by the severity of the tubal disease and by the availability of the methods. The aim of this study was to compare the costs of our policy of offering tubal surgery to patients with mild or moderate tubal disease with the cost of offering IVF to these and severe tubal disease.
Methods: In this retrospective cohort study patients with tubal pathology as the sole reason for their infertility were included: 61 patients in the tubal surgery group and 464 patients in the IVF group. The delivery rates and costs per delivery were compared.
Results: Delivery rates were 28% in the tubal surgery group within 2 years of follow-up and 52% in the IVF group that involved up to three cycles of treatment. This economic evaluation demonstrated only small differences in the average cost when considering the cost per delivery.
Conclusions: With a policy involving strict selection of patients, tubal surgery will continue to have a role in the treatment of infertility.
Keywords: Cost, infertility, in vitro fertilization, tubal surgery
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (70.4 KB).
References
- 1.Drummond M, Stoddart G, Labelle R, Cushman R. Health Economics: An introduction for clinicians. Ann Intern Med. 1987;107:88–92. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-107-1-88. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Detsky AS, Naglie IG. A clinician's guide to cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:147–154. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-2-147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, UK: Oxford Medical Publications; 1987. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Van Voorhis BJ, Stowall DW, Allen BD, Syrop CH. Cost-effective treatment of the infertile couple. Fertil Steril. 1998;70:995–1005. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(98)00341-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Holst N, Maltau JM, Forsdahl F, Hansen LJ. Handling of tubal infertility after introduction of in vitro fertilization: Changes and consequences. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:140–143. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)54073-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Haan G, Van Steen R. Cost in relation to effects of in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1992;7:982–986. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Daya S: Comparison of IVF with conventional treatment for tubal infertility. Spécial congrès Vichy–IFFS 1995, pp. 206-214
- 8.Mage G, Pouly JL, de Joliniere JB, Chabrand S, Riouallon A, Bruhat MA. A preoperative classification to predict the intrauterine and ectopic pregnancy rates after distal tubal microsurgery. Fertil Steril. 1986;46:807–810. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)49815-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Eisenberg JM. A guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA. 1989;262:2879–2886. doi: 10.1001/jama.262.20.2879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Granberg M, Wikland M, Hamberger L. Financing of IVF/ET in the Nordic countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77:63–67. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0412.1998.770114.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Eddy D. Applying cost-effectiveness analysis. JAMA. 1992;268:2575–2582. doi: 10.1001/jama.268.18.2575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ubel PA, De Kay ML, Baron J, Asch DA. Cost-effectiveness analysis in a setting of budget constraints, is it equitable? N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1174–1177. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199605023341807. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Penzias A, DeCherney AH. Is there ever a role for tubal surgery? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;174:1218–1223. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70664-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Van Voorhis BJ, Stowall DW, Sparks AET, Syrop CH, Allen BD, Chapler FK. Cost-effectiveness of infertility treatments: A cohort study. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:830–836. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)81393-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Philips Z, Barraza-llorens M, Posnett J. Evaluation of the relative cost-effectiveness of treatments for infertility in the UK. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:95–106. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.1.95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Van Voorhis BJ, Stowall DW, Syrop CH. Cost-effective treatment for the couple with infertility. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000;43:958–973. doi: 10.1097/00003081-200012000-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Copperman AB, Mukherjee T, Shaer J, Patel D, Sandler B, Grunfeld L, Bustillo M. A cost analysis of in vitro fertilization versus tubal surgery within an institution under two payment systems. J Womans Health. 1996;5:335–341. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Csemiczky G, Wramsby H, Landgren BM. High tubal damage is associated with low pregnancy rate in women undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:2438–2440. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a019132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Strandell A, Lindhard A, Waldenström U, Thorburn J, Jansson PO, Hamberger L. Hydrosalpinx and IVF outcome: A prospective, randomized multicentre trial in Scandinavia on salpingectomy prior to IVF. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2762–2769. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.11.2762. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Hammarberg K., Astbury J., Baker H.W.G. Women's experience of IVF: A follow-up study. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:374–383. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.2.374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Bergh C, Borg G, Friden B, Olivius C: Why do couples with infertility interrupt treatment? XIV Nordic IVF Meeting, Lillehammar, Norway, Jan2002 (Abstract Book NW4 2002)
- 22.Ehnskog A, Henriksson M, Unander M, Brannstrom M. Prospective study of the clinical and laboratory parameters of patients in whom ovarian hypestimulation syndrome developed during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1999;71:808–814. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00090-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Vilska S, Tiitinen A, Hydén-Granskog C, Hovatta O. Elective transfer of one embryo results in an acceptable pregnancy rate and eliminates the risk for multiple birth. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2392–2395. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.9.2392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Strandell A, Bergh C, Lundin K. Selection of patients suitable for one-embryo transfer may reduce the rate of multiple births by half without impairment of overall birth rates. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2520–2525. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.12.2520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]