Premium
Cost‐effectiveness of cytogenetic evaluation of products of conception by chorionic villus sampling in recurrent miscarriage
Author(s) -
Petracchi Florencia,
Paez Cecilia,
Igarzabal Laura
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
prenatal diagnosis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.956
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1097-0223
pISSN - 0197-3851
DOI - 10.1002/pd.5005
Subject(s) - chorionic villus sampling , miscarriage , medicine , obstetrics , sampling (signal processing) , gynecology , products of conception , chorionic villi , karyotype , recurrent miscarriage , pregnancy , fetus , prenatal diagnosis , gestation , biology , computer science , chromosome , genetics , filter (signal processing) , gene , computer vision
Objective To compare the cost‐effectiveness of performing chorionic villus sampling (CVS) of products of conception (POC) in the evaluation of recurrent miscarriage versus standard evidence‐based work‐up (EBW) of the couple. Material and methods A decision‐analytic model was performed in couples with a third miscarriage. Three strategies were considered: (1) the standard EBW of all the patients, comprising parental karyotype, uterine cavity assessment and antiphospholipid antibodies; (2) performing a CVS of POC and a standard karyotype, and if euploid, follow with EBW; and (3) performing a CVS of POC and an arrayCGH and, if normal, follow with EBW. Estimated cost and diagnostic yield of each strategy was analysed. Sensitivity analysis and threshold cost were considered. Results The expected cost‐effectiveness of CVS and karyotype of POC in recurrent miscarriage was: $US769.79 versus $US 1361.8 for the standard EBW of the couple. When stratified by maternal age the results remained cost‐effective for this strategy. The arrayCGH strategy has a higher diagnostic yield, but still expensive in our setting to be considered cost‐effective. Conclusions Chorionic villus sampling and karyotype analysis of products of conception in a third miscarriage proved a more cost‐effective strategy than standard EBW of the couple. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.