Related Experiment Videos
Use of algorithmic pathways to develop quality, cost-effective clinical care
V K Khare1, R Consonni, D C Martin
1Department of Pathology, University of Tennessee, Memphis, USA.
Summary
Analyzing diagnostic and treatment costs for hydrosalpinges and pelvic adhesions reveals that laparoscopy for adhesions and hysterosalpingogram (HSG) for hydrosalpinges are most cost-effective for achieving pregnancy. Chlamydia screening may offer further cost benefits.
Area of Science:
- Reproductive Medicine
- Health Economics
- Gynecologic Surgery
Background:
- Hydrosalpinges and pelvic adhesions are significant causes of infertility.
- Algorithmic diagnostic and treatment pathways are used to manage these conditions.
- In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a common but costly treatment option.
Purpose of the Study:
- To analyze the cost-effectiveness of various diagnostic and treatment pathways for hydrosalpinges and pelvic adhesions.
- To compare the cost per achieved pregnancy for different management strategies.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of six defined algorithmic pathways involving Chlamydia IgG titers, hysterosalpingogram (HSG), diagnostic laparoscopy, therapeutic laparoscopy, and IVF.
- Mathematical modeling was used to calculate the theoretical cost per pregnancy for each pathway.
- Data were sourced from a tertiary care practice at a university-associated hospital.
Main Results:
- The most cost-effective pathway for adhesions involved diagnosis and treatment at laparoscopy without prior screening, costing $18,883 per pregnancy.
- For hydrosalpinges, starting with an HSG was the least costly approach at $26,614 per pregnancy.
- All pathways for adhesions and screening pathways using HSG for hydrosalpinges were more cost-effective than IVF alone.
Conclusions:
- Laparoscopy for pelvic adhesions and HSG for hydrosalpinges appear to be the most cost-effective approaches to achieving pregnancy.
- The study acknowledges limitations due to assumptions and a tertiary care population.
- Primary care screening with Chlamydia trachomatis IgG antibody testing may offer a more cost-effective strategy.