Background

Cost-effectiveness analyses on cell salvage for cesarean delivery to inform national and societal guidelines on obstetric blood management are lacking. This study examined the cost-effectiveness of cell salvage strategies in obstetric hemorrhage from a societal perspective.

Methods

Markov decision analysis modeling compared the cost-effectiveness of three strategies: use of cell salvage for every cesarean delivery, cell salvage use for high-risk cases, and no cell salvage. A societal perspective and lifetime horizon was assumed for the base case of a 26-yr-old primiparous woman presenting for cesarean delivery. Each strategy integrated probabilities of hemorrhage, hysterectomy, transfusion reactions, emergency procedures, and cell salvage utilization; utilities for quality of life; and costs at the societal level. One-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. A threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained was used as a cost-effectiveness criterion. Results Cell salvage use for cases at high risk for hemorrhage was cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio,$34,881 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Routine cell salvage use for all cesarean deliveries was not cost-effective, costing $415,488 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Results were not sensitive to individual variation of other model parameters. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at the$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained threshold, there is more than 85% likelihood that cell salvage use for cases at high risk for hemorrhage is favorable.

Conclusions

The use of cell salvage for cases at high risk for obstetric hemorrhage is economically reasonable; routine cell salvage use for all cesarean deliveries is not. These findings can inform the development of public policies such as guidelines on management of obstetric hemorrhage.

• Intraoperative cell salvage in obstetrics reduces the need for allogeneic blood transfusion and mitigates postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery. Overall the implementation and utilization of intraoperative blood salvage has been found to add cost in some situations and may add economic value for other situations.

What This Article Tells Us That Is New
• The use of cell salvage for cases at high risk for obstetric hemorrhage is economically reasonable; routine cell salvage use for all cesarean deliveries is not.

OBSTETRIC hemorrhage is consistently a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide.1  The use of intraoperative cell salvage as a blood conservation technique is recommended in cases of anticipated extreme blood loss, unavailability of cross-matched compatible blood products, and high average transfusion requirements of a particular procedure in question. It is specifically recommended by several entities including the AABB (formerly known as the American Association of Blood Banks) and the eighth report of “Saving Mothers’ Lives” by the United Kingdom’s Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths.2–6

Intraoperative cell salvage in obstetrics reduces the need for allogeneic blood transfusion and mitigates postpartum anemia after cesarean delivery.7  These protections may afford women in the peripartum period a number of advantages, including reduced risk for transfusion reactions, administrative errors, alloimmunization, transmission of infectious disease, Rh incompatibility in subsequent pregnancies resulting in hemolytic disease of the newborn, and prevention of anemia, which can in turn enhance postpartum recovery and function.8–10

Although the advantages of the implementation and utilization of intraoperative blood salvage are recognized, the process requires an expenditure of resources, including technologist time and the cost of equipment and materials, and its benefits to patient-centered outcomes such as quality of recovery are unknown.11  In some situations, cell salvage strategies have been found to add cost; in single-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion surgery, a cell salvage strategy was found to add to total blood product costs, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5,555,380 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.12 On the other hand, cell salvage strategies may add economic value for certain situations. Albright et al.13 performed a cost analysis of the use of cell salvage in obstetrics and concluded that cell salvage is cost-saving in cases of high probability of transfusion or massive transfusion. However, this analysis focused on a healthcare-level perspective and the use of cost-savings as an endpoint. Recommendations from the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine14 suggest that a more useful perspective from the standpoint of informing best practice is a societal perspective, rather than a healthcare-level perspective, and that a more informative endpoint is cost-effectiveness, rather than cost-savings. The terms “cost-saving” and “cost-effective” are not interchangeable; although cost-saving strategies are those that decrease cost irrespective of the benefits, cost-effective strategies are those for which the benefits are sufficiently large compared to the costs, even if it does not save money.15 A societal perspective provides a basis for decisions that are fair to all parties—individual, health system, payers—and it can better inform global decisions on resource allocation, compared to a healthcare-level perspective or an individual perspective.16 Therefore, a cost-effectiveness analysis can be valuable by exposing strategies that may still be beneficial but are possibly overlooked by a cost-savings examination. Although Albright’s study examined two main strategies—setting up cell salvage for all cesarean delivery cases versus no cell salvage at all—strategies that remain unexamined for cost-effectiveness include using cell salvage for varying degrees of hemorrhagic risk during cesarean delivery, the risk of which changes over the entire reproductive life span. In this context, the goal of this study was to determine under what circumstances the use of cell salvage strategies in obstetric hemorrhage during cesarean delivery is cost-effective, from a societal perspective and over the reproductive life span. ### Perspective, Assumptions, Model Cohort, and Model Structure Review by the University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board was not required for this activity, which utilized existing data from published research or otherwise available in the public domain. Data from the National Vital Statistics Reports on births (2013) was used as the foundation of our base case and cohort.17 Our base case was a 26-yr-old primiparous woman presenting for a scheduled cesarean delivery. A societal perspective and a lifetime time horizon were assumed. Decision analysis with Markov state processing formed the basis of the model structure; with this approach, individuals in the cohort cycle through the model through various states of postcesarean, interval pregnancy, and posttransfusion with or without cell salvage (fig. 1). Markov models allow the evaluation of events that can occur multiple times over a life span, such as childbirth and its attendant risks for hemorrhage. We modeled three primary strategies: using cell salvage for all cesarean deliveries (IOCS-ALL), using cell salvage only for deliveries at high risk for hemorrhage (IOCS-HR, defined under Rates, Costs, and Probabilities section), and no utilization of cell salvage (IOCS-NO). Our cohort was comprised of women requiring cesarean delivery, with average age at first pregnancy of 26 yr and reproductive life span is 19 yr.17 Birth rates were adjusted by age based on data available from the Centers for Disease Control National Vital Statistics Reports.6 A cycle length of 1 yr was applied to each Markov state. A discount rate of 3% was applied to future costs and benefits. Lifetime medical costs were included. Cell salvage was assumed to have been used throughout the entire cesarean delivery. Because of the rarity of adverse events associated with cell salvage,18 the model assumed no risks associated with the use of cell salvage. Other key assumptions are shown in table 1. Digital files of the full model and details on model structure are completely available upon request. All analyses were performed using TreeAge Pro Suite 2015 software (TreeAge Software, USA). Table 1. Key Assumptions for the Decision Analysis Model Fig. 1. Markov state transition diagram. Each oval represents a health state, and arrows in between the ovals demonstrate potential directions of transition that each patient can make with each cycle of the model. Curved arrows pointing back toward the same health state indicates a return to the same health state in the next cycle (cycle length = 1 yr). Posttransfusion-related illness was modeled as a health state associated only with the receipt of intraoperative cell salvage (IOCS) and allogeneic transfusion. All women in the cohort eventually transition to a “die” health state, not pictured. *Model start point. Fig. 1. Markov state transition diagram. Each oval represents a health state, and arrows in between the ovals demonstrate potential directions of transition that each patient can make with each cycle of the model. Curved arrows pointing back toward the same health state indicates a return to the same health state in the next cycle (cycle length = 1 yr). Posttransfusion-related illness was modeled as a health state associated only with the receipt of intraoperative cell salvage (IOCS) and allogeneic transfusion. All women in the cohort eventually transition to a “die” health state, not pictured. *Model start point. ### Rates, Costs, and Probabilities To every strategy, mean hospital costs for “Pregnancy, Childbirth, and the Puerperium,” as coded by Major Diagnostic Category ($4,414) and assessed in 2012 dollars, were added.19  We added physician and technician costs to every strategy; hospital, physician, and technician costs were added and ranges were set at ±25% to capture regional variations in cost plus possible uncertainty based on the relationship of reimbursement versus true cost.20  Costs for transfusion reactions were aggregated by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code according to available 2012 data.19  Severe transfusion reactions for which cost data were available and included in the model encompassed transfusion-associated circulatory overload, transfusion-related acute lung injury, transfusion-related infections, delayed hemolytic transfusion reactions, infusion reactions not otherwise specified, and transfusion reactions not otherwise specified. Mild transfusion reactions for which cost data were available encompassed febrile transfusion reactions.

Women in the model were defined as being at high risk for hemorrhage based on known risks for hemorrhage including placenta previa, placenta accreta, repeat cesarean delivery or multiparity, chorioamnionitis, placental abruption, hypertensive disorders during pregnancy, and trial of labor after cesarean with subsequent uterine rupture.13,21,22  Other hemorrhage risks that were not modeled, to minimize model complexity, included risk for hemorrhage due to macrosomia, multiple pregnancies, obesity, prolonged labor, intrauterine infections, or instrumental vaginal delivery. Probabilities on death from hemorrhage were based on data available from the Centers for Disease Control Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System,17  which notably included not only intraoperative mortality, but also deaths after stillbirths, abortions, and ectopic pregnancies. Probability of death from transfusion was based on the leading cause of mortality after allogeneic transfusion, transfusion-associated lung injury, with an assumed incidence of transfusion-associated lung injury at 1:5,000 and a range quoted at 5 to 10%.23  The probability of vaginal birth after cesarean was calculated as a pooled chance of success associated with trial of labor after cesarean both after one prior cesarean delivery (probability 0.67, range 0.20 to 1.0), as well as successful vaginal birth after cesarean after a history of successful vaginal birth after cesarean (probability 0.89, range 0.20 to 1.0).6,24  Other probabilities modeled included that of hemorrhage in primary cesarean delivery, hysterectomy, emergent hysterectomy, severe transfusion-related illness, requiring transfusion, and pooled risk for contracting transfusion-related illness.25–33  In the model, separate from the risk of dying from hemorrhage, we also modeled the risk of dying from all causes, and we used life tables to account for age- and sex-specific death rates from other causes. All upper- and lower-limit ranges were defined by values published in the literature (table 2). To assess whether the ranges were a reasonable test of a parameter’s importance, distributions around all variables were varied widely in the sensitivity analyses, with upper and lower limits defined by values published in the literature.

Table 2.

Parameter Values for Base Case and Sensitivity Analyses

### Utilities

Utilities of health states were determined based on available data in the literature and are reported as measurements of quality-adjusted life-years. The utility of the health state associated with the receipt of cell salvage was not available and was therefore imputed based on its rate of expected benefits in reducing allogeneic transfusion.34  Based on this information, the use of cell salvage results in an average saving of 0.68 units of allogeneic packed erythrocytes per patient (95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88), translating to a 32% reduction in the use of allogeneic packed erythrocytes. We therefore assumed a 32% improvement in the utility of the health state associated with transfusion alone to define the utility of the health state associated with receipt of salvaged blood. To account for this assumption in utility, the distribution of the utility of this health state was varied widely in probabilistic sensitivity analyses so that the relative impact of this variable on the model conclusions could be assessed. Ranges were based on ranges in the published literature with base-case values based on means or medians as appropriate. A similar approach was taken to the utility of the health state associated with transfusion, because this information is not available.35  The utility of the health state after cesarean due to uterine rupture included the health state associated with emergency cesarean, which included uterine rupture as well as other emergencies, and the health state associated with cesarean due to uterine rupture alone.36,37  Other utilities modeled included utilities associated with hemorrhage, transfusion, hysterectomy (acute and chronic health states), pregnancy loss, mild transfusion reactions, severe transfusion-related illness, uterine rupture, vaginal birth after cesarean, and cesarean delivery (acute and chronic health states).38–48 Table 2 shows rates, costs, probabilities, and utilities with corresponding distributions that were used in the model; the table also lists corresponding literature from which base-case and upper- and lower-limit range values were derived.

### Analyses

Treatment strategies were compared based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is defined as the ratio of the incremental cost of one strategy compared to another, over the improvement measured in quality-adjusted life-years. Cost-effectiveness was defined as a strategy that costs less than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, based on suggestions that the common cited benchmark for willingness to pay of$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained may be outdated and that standards greater than $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained may be excessive.49,50 One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted around all cost, utility, and probability variables to address the uncertainty around these parameters and to account for the extrapolation of some of these values from nonobstetric literature. One-way sensitivity analysis is performed to examine the effect of changing one or more variable in the model, to determine which variables are most influential to the model results. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, we varied all parameters individually to detect the effect of these variations on model results. A Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis is performed to produce a distribution of possible incremental cost-effectiveness ratio outcomes. In the Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the exact value of a variable is replaced with a distribution, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are calculated based on the set of values drawn from their respective distributions. By this analysis, simultaneous variation of all parameters is achieved. In our analysis, distributions of each parameter were randomly sampled over 1,000 trials to determine the proportion of the time in which each strategy is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of$100,000. Cost distributions were varied by γ functions, and probability and utility distributions were varied by triangular functions over all sampling trials.

### Base-case Analysis

The use of cell salvage for cases at high risk for hemorrhage was cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $34,881 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The routine use of cell salvage for all cesarean deliveries was not cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of$415,488 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (table 3).

Table 3.

Cost-effectiveness Rankings for Base Case

### One-way Sensitivity Analyses

Results of the one-way sensitivity analyses are shown in figure 2. There were six variables that influenced the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis by more than 10%. In order of most to least influential, these variables were the utility of the health state associated with transfusion (estimate, 0.6 to 0.91), the cost of allogeneic transfusion alone (estimate, $18,892 to 31,448), the cost of cell salvage (estimate,$16,615 to 27,692), the cost of hemorrhage (estimate, $7,045 to 11,742), the cost of allogeneic transfusion in addition to cell salvage (estimate,$22,297 to 37,162), and the probability of receiving salvaged blood alone (estimate, 0.615 to 1.0). The probability of transfusion-related illness was varied and did not significantly affect the results; the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not substantially changed by the risk for transfusion-related illness (probability estimate, 0.0 to 0.0111). For the health state associated with wellness after transfusion, at a utility of 0.902 or greater, the IOCS-HR strategy exceeds the $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold ($115,887 per quality-adjusted life-year). The results of the model were least sensitive to the probability of using cell salvage (estimate, 0.0 to 0.8) and the disutility of hysterectomy (estimate, 0.0 to 0.01).

Fig. 2.

Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) tornado diagram for one-way sensitivity analysis for the strategies intraoperative cell salvage high risk only versus no intraoperative cell salvage. The vertical line denotes the base-case expected value ($34,881). Variation around the variables listed induces a variation of 10% or greater from the base-case ICER. The utility of the well state after transfusion is the most sensitive parameter. The probability of using cell salvage and the disutility of hysterectomy are least influential to the results of the model (not shown). Fig. 2. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) tornado diagram for one-way sensitivity analysis for the strategies intraoperative cell salvage high risk only versus no intraoperative cell salvage. The vertical line denotes the base-case expected value ($34,881). Variation around the variables listed induces a variation of 10% or greater from the base-case ICER. The utility of the well state after transfusion is the most sensitive parameter. The probability of using cell salvage and the disutility of hysterectomy are least influential to the results of the model (not shown).

### Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis

The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that at the $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained threshold, there is a greater than 85% likelihood that a strategy employing cell salvage for cesarean deliveries at high risk for hemorrhage is favorable. At willingness-to-pay thresholds between$0 to about $35,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, a strategy of no cell salvage for any cesarean delivery is favored, and cell salvage for cesarean deliveries at high risk for hemorrhage is not favored (range iterations that no cell salvage strategy is cost-effective at this willingness to pay threshold, 50 to 90%). A strategy of using cell salvage for all cesarean deliveries was not favored if the willingness to pay threshold was$200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained or less (maximum percent iterations that cell salvage for all cesarean deliveries is cost-effective, 5%; fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. At the $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained threshold, there is greater than 85% likelihood that cell salvage for cesarean deliveries at high risk for hemorrhage is a favorable strategy. At willingness-to-pay thresholds below$35,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, a strategy of no cell salvage for any cesarean delivery is favored. Below a willingness to pay threshold of $200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, using cell salvage for all cesarean deliveries is not a favorable strategy. CE = cost-effectiveness. Fig. 3. Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis. At the$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained threshold, there is greater than 85% likelihood that cell salvage for cesarean deliveries at high risk for hemorrhage is a favorable strategy. At willingness-to-pay thresholds below $35,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, a strategy of no cell salvage for any cesarean delivery is favored. Below a willingness to pay threshold of$200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, using cell salvage for all cesarean deliveries is not a favorable strategy. CE = cost-effectiveness.

This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of cell salvage for cesarean deliveries from a societal perspective, over the reproductive life span. Our results support that it is economically reasonable to use intraoperative cell salvage in cases of cesarean delivery that are at high risk for hemorrhage. The societal perspective and lifetime horizon of our analysis can inform broader applications in the development of public policy, such as national guidelines on management of obstetric hemorrhage. At the same time, the analysis is limited in terms of its ability to guide hospital-level considerations that would drive individual institutional decisions to purchase and implement cell salvage strategies in obstetrics.

If the utility of the health state associated with transfusion is equal to or greater than 0.902, the IOCS-HR strategy exceeds the $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold ($115,887 per quality-adjusted life-year). The one-way sensitivity analysis shows that other variables vary the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis, but not at $100,000. Therefore, the only variable that will make the IOCS-HR strategy unfavorable is this utility value; other variables do not meaningfully fluctuate the results. Although it is interesting that the utility of the health state associated with transfusion is the most sensitive variable, it is unlikely to be realistically influential, in that when considered in the context of varying all parameters by the Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis, at a willingness-to-pay level of$100,000, there is a greater than 85% likelihood that IOCS-HR would still be favored.

Several other investigations have evaluated the economic ramifications of using cell salvage in obstetrics from a hospital-level perspective.13,51–54  Brearton et al.54  published the results of their institutional experience with cell salvage for obstetric hemorrhage over time. Their findings were consistent with ours in that the rate of return of salvaged shed blood was higher for emergency and high-risk cases. The investigators also detected a decreased rate of return of salvaged shed blood over time, which was associated with the increased utilization of cell salvage for routine cases. Despite these findings, the authors felt that the rate of return of salvaged blood offset the costs of cell salvage setup compared to the cost of using allogeneic blood.54  Our findings challenge this latter conclusion, because the results of our Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis show that a strategy of using cell salvage for all cesarean deliveries irrespective of risk for hemorrhage is never cost-effective, at the $200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold or below. Waters et al.53 took a hospital-level economic examination of implementation and maintaining cell salvage as part of a blood management program and found that cell salvage can be significantly less expensive than allogeneic blood, although institutional level costs are still dependent upon case volume, expected levels of blood loss per case, and initial investment costs. Our findings highlight the importance of considering the value of the$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold. We used the $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold based on modern recommendations grounded on the notion that the historical$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold is too low.34  However, the World Health Organization has suggested that thresholds of $110,000 to 160,000 per quality-adjusted life-year are more appropriate, based on global assumptions about values, attitudes toward risk, and information on per capita annual income. Other economists have gone so far as to suggest that$200,000 to 300,000 per quality-adjusted life-year thresholds should be the standard, based on increases in healthcare expenditures over time, improvements in health associated with those expenditures, and willingness-to-pay attitudes.49,50  In this analysis, if we liberalize the threshold to $150,000 to 200,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the utility of the health state associated with transfusion is no longer sensitive nor influential on the results of this analysis. Thus, at thresholds greater than$150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, there is even more confidence in the conclusion that IOCS-HR is a cost-effective strategy compared to IOCS-NO or ICOS-ALL.

Historically, implementation of cell salvage in obstetrics has been limited by concerns regarding maternal alloimmunization requiring additional Rho(D) immune globulin administration in Rh-negative mothers and a concern for amniotic fluid embolism, although there has only been one case report suggesting a potential link between amniotic fluid embolism after cell salvage.2  Other concerns have included dilutional coagulopathy and hypotension, which have been reported after reinfusion of shed blood through a leukocyte depletion filter. Although technical errors are extremely rare, there have been reports of hemolysis progressing to disseminated intravascular coagulation and heparin toxicity associated with incorrect or inadequate washing. However, the overall potential risks of cell salvage in obstetrics are generally aligned with the risks in the general population.2,4  A 2016 retrospective cohort study reported two adverse events associated with intraoperative cell salvage, both in obstetric patients, and the investigators quoted an overall rate of patient-related adverse events related to intraoperative cell salvage of between 0 and 2 per 33,351 (0 to 0.006%).18

There are limitations to this study. There are few probabilities and health state utilities that have been explicitly examined in the obstetrical and perinatal patient population, and therefore it was necessary to extrapolate some of these values and vary them over wide ranges in sensitivity analyses to generate a meaningful model. However, as evidenced by the results of our one-way sensitivity analysis, the impact of the extrapolations over these values on the overall conclusions of this study are likely to be minimal. Second, the probability of death from hemorrhage was based upon available Centers for Disease Control data, which included not only intraoperative mortality, but also stillbirths, abortions, and ectopic pregnancies, which are not specific to our cohort but may have led to an overestimation of our results. Third, we only compared three strategies: no cell salvage at all, cell salvage for cesarean deliveries at high risk for hemorrhage, and cell salvage for all cesarean deliveries. There may be other operative strategies in obstetrics worth modeling in terms of cost-effectiveness of cell salvage, including risk stratification based on each specific risk factor or accounting for unanticipated postpartum hemorrhage that occurs in women who have no risk factors, as occurs with traumatic causes of hemorrhage (e.g., operative injuries, uterine rupture, uterine inversion). We did not undertake analyses of this latter nature because clinical decisions to set up cell salvage ahead of time are made based upon known risk factors at the time of cesarean delivery. We cannot comment on the cost-effectiveness of implementing cell salvage later during a case of unexpected postpartum hemorrhage after cesarean delivery in a woman with no apparent risk factors. Future studies could investigate this important question by undertaking a hospital-level perspective based on institutional rates of unexpected postpartum hemorrhage and gauging uncertainty in parameter estimates by varying distributions in one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses based on means and variances of variable probabilities, costs, and utilities of that particular hospital. The lifetime time horizon assumed in this analysis can be limiting in that longer time horizons make it more challenging to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life-year values, although the use of tunnel states enabled us to vary some disease-specific hazards over time. Another limitation is that we assumed no risk of complications related to cell salvage, although more precisely the risk is extremely low (0.006%). Our rationale in this assumption was that the risk of adverse events was rare, and we expect that the quality-adjusted life-year loss per event would be minimal; however, the true impact of this minimal risk on dollars per quality-adjusted life-year gained is not known by this analysis. Finally, our analyses included costs in the year 2012 because this is the most recent available medical cost information. However, our sensitivity analyses varied these values widely and should not significantly impact the results of our study.

Although the current analysis provides economic information that supports the general use of cell salvage for cesarean deliveries at high risk for hemorrhage, individual hospitals still need to evaluate the feasibility and local cost ramifications of adopting cell salvage technology at their institutions. Costs to the hospital will depend on case volume, estimated volume of blood shed per case, and initial equipment and training costs. Modification to our model or use of an alternative model such as that provided by Waters et al.53  can assist in hospitals considering implementation of cell salvage technology for cesarean delivery.

In summary, cell salvage for cases at high risk for hemorrhage is economically reasonable compared to strategies of cell salvage use for all cesarean deliveries or no cell salvage use at all. Elucidating the utility of the health state associated with allogeneic transfusion in obstetric patients will be useful in assessing the robustness of these results. Obstetric blood management guidelines may be informed by these findings.

Supported by the Department of Anesthesiology and the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dr. Lim is supported by National Institutes of Health Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health Award K12HD043441 (to Yoel Sadovsky, M.D.) and by a National Institutes of Health Ruth Kirschstein National Service Award T32MG075770 (to Yan Xu, Ph.D.). Dr. Facco is supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Award R01HL120354.

The authors declare no competing interests.

1.
The World Health Organization Fact Sheet No. 348: Maternal Mortality
.
Available at: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs348/en/. Accessed November 26, 2015
2.
Goucher
H
,
Wong
CA
,
Patel
SK
,
Toledo
P
:
Cell salvage in obstetrics.
Anesth Analg
2015
;
121
:
465
8
3.
Waters
JH
:
Indications and contraindications of cell salvage.
Transfusion
2004
;
44
:
40
4S
4.
Allam
J
,
Cox
M
,
Yentis
SM
:
Cell salvage in obstetrics.
Int J Obstet Anesth
2008
;
17
:
37
45
5.
Ashworth
A
,
Klein
AA
:
Cell salvage as part of a blood conservation strategy in anaesthesia.
Br J Anaesth
2010
;
105
:
401
16
6.
Martin
J
,
Hamilton
B
,
Osterman
M
,
Curtin
S
,
Mathews
T
:
Births: Final Data for 2013, National Vital Statistics Reports
.
Hyattsville, Maryland
,
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
,
2015
7.
Rainaldi
MP
,
Tazzari
PL
,
Scagliarini
G
,
Borghi
B
,
Conte
R
:
Blood salvage during caesarean section.
Br J Anaesth
1998
;
80
:
195
8
8.
Tran
TD
,
Biggs
BA
,
Tran
T
,
Simpson
JA
,
Hanieh
S
,
Dwyer
T
,
Fisher
J
:
Impact on infants’ cognitive development of antenatal exposure to iron deficiency disorder and common mental disorders.
PLoS One
2013
;
8
:
e74876
9.
Holm
C
,
Thomsen
LL
,
Norgaard
A
,
Langhoff-Roos
J
:
Intravenous iron isomaltoside 1000 administered by high single-dose infusions or standard medical care for the treatment of fatigue in women after postpartum haemorrhage: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Trials
2015
;
16
:
5
10.
Goshtasebi
A
,
M
,
Gandevani
SB
:
Association between maternal anaemia and postpartum depression in an urban sample of pregnant women in Iran.
J Health Popul Nutr
2013
;
31
:
398
402
11.
Milne
ME
,
Yazer
MH
,
Waters
JH
:
Red blood cell salvage during obstetric hemorrhage.
Obstet Gynecol
2015
;
125
:
919
23
12.
Canan
CE
,
Myers
JA
,
Owens
RK
,
Crawford
CH
III
,
Djurasovic
M
,
Burke
LO
,
Bratcher
KR
,
McCarthy
KJ
,
Carreon
LY
:
Blood salvage produces higher total blood product costs in single-level lumbar spine surgery.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976)
2013
;
38
:
703
8
13.
Albright
CM
,
Rouse
DJ
,
Werner
EF
:
Cost savings of red cell salvage during cesarean delivery.
Obstet Gynecol
2014
;
124
:
690
6
14.
Weinstein
MC
,
Siegel
JE
,
Gold
MR
,
Kamlet
MS
,
Russell
LB
:
Recommendations of the panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
JAMA
1996
;
276
:
1253
8
15.
Teutsch
S
:
Prevention and value: The Synthesis Project
.
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
,
Princeton, New Jersey
,
2009
16.
Johannesson
M
:
A note on the depreciation of the societal perspective in economic evaluation of health care.
Health Policy
1995
;
33
:
59
66
17.
Creanga
AA
,
Berg
CJ
,
Syverson
C
,
Seed
K
,
Bruce
FC
,
Callaghan
WM
:
Pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, 2006–2010.
Obstet Gynecol
2015
;
125
:
5
12
18.
D
,
Waters
JH
,
Triulzi
DJ
,
Alarcon
L
,
Wisniewski
MK
,
Dyga
R
,
Yazer
MH
:
Very low rate of patient-related adverse events associated with the use of intraoperative cell salvage.
Transfusion
2016
;
56
:
2768
72
19.
HCUP Home
:
Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP)
.
Rockville, Maryland
,
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
,
2012
Available at: https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/. Accessed May 4, 2015
20.
Physician and Other Supplier Data CY 2012
.
Baltimore, Maryland
,
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
21.
Koopmans
CM
,
van der Tuuk
K
,
Groen
H
,
Doornbos
JP
,
de Graaf
IM
,
van der Salm
PC
,
Porath
MM
,
Kuppens
SM
,
Wijnen
EJ
,
Aardenburg
R
,
van Loon
AJ
,
Akerboom
BM
,
van der Lans
PJ
,
Mol
BW
,
van Pampus
MG
;
HYPITAT study group
:
Prediction of postpartum hemorrhage in women with gestational hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
2014
;
93
:
399
407
22.
American College of O, Gynecologists: ACOG Practice Bulletin: Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetrician-Gynecologists Number 76, October 2006: Postpartum hemorrhage.
Obstet Gynecol
2006
;
108
:
1039
47
23.
Toy
P
,
Popovsky
MA
,
Abraham
E
,
Ambruso
DR
,
Holness
LG
,
Kopko
PM
,
McFarland
JG
,
Nathens
AB
,
Silliman
CC
,
Stroncek
D
;
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Working Group on TRALI
:
Transfusion-related acute lung injury: Definition and review.
Crit Care Med
2005
;
33
:
721
6
24.
Gilbert
SA
,
Grobman
WA
,
Landon
MB
,
Varner
MW
,
Wapner
RJ
,
Sorokin
Y
,
Sibai
BM
,
Thorp
JM
,
Ramin
SM
,
Mercer
BM
;
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network
:
Lifetime cost-effectiveness of trial of labor after cesarean in the United States.
Value Health
2013
;
16
:
953
64
25.
Baba
Y
,
Ohkuchi
A
,
Usui
R
,
Suzuki
H
,
Kuwata
T
,
Matsubara
S
:
Calculating probability of requiring allogeneic blood transfusion using three preoperative risk factors on cesarean section for placenta previa.
Arch Gynecol Obstet
2015
;
291
:
281
5
26.
Blajchman
MA
,
Goldman
M
,
Freedman
JJ
,
Sher
GD
:
Proceedings of a consensus conference: Prevention of post-transfusion CMV in the era of universal leukoreduction.
Transfus Med Rev
2001
;
15
:
1
20
27.
Dodd
RY
:
Current risk for transfusion transmitted infections.
Curr Opin Hematol
2007
;
14
:
671
6
28.
Dodd
RY
,
Notari
EP
IV
,
Stramer
SL
:
Current prevalence and incidence of infectious disease markers and estimated window-period risk in the American Red Cross blood donor population.
Transfusion
2002
;
42
:
975
9
29.
Eder
AF
,
Kennedy
JM
,
Dy
BA
,
Notari
EP
,
Weiss
JW
,
Fang
CT
,
Wagner
S
,
Dodd
RY
,
Benjamin
RJ
;
American Red Cross Regional Blood Centers
:
Bacterial screening of apheresis platelets and the residual risk of septic transfusion reactions: The American Red Cross experience (2004–2006).
Transfusion
2007
;
47
:
1134
42
30.
Li
G
,
Rachmale
S
,
Kojicic
M
,
Shahjehan
K
,
Malinchoc
M
,
Kor
DJ
,
Gajic
O
:
Incidence and transfusion risk factors for transfusion-associated circulatory overload among medical intensive care unit patients.
Transfusion
2011
;
51
:
338
43
31.
Magann
EF
,
Evans
S
,
Hutchinson
M
,
Collins
R
,
Lanneau
G
,
Morrison
JC
:
Postpartum hemorrhage after cesarean delivery: An analysis of risk factors.
South Med J
2005
;
98
:
681
5
32.
Magee
G
,
Zbrozek
A
:
Fluid overload is associated with increases in length of stay and hospital costs: Pooled analysis of data from more than 600 US hospitals.
Clinicoecon Outcomes Res
2013
;
5
:
289
96
33.
Sheiner
E
,
Levy
A
,
Katz
M
,
Mazor
M
:
Identifying risk factors for peripartum cesarean hysterectomy: A population-based study.
J Reprod Med
2003
;
48
:
622
6
34.
Carless
PA
,
Henry
DA
,
Moxey
AJ
,
O’Connell
D
,
Brown
T
,
Fergusson
DA
:
Cell salvage for minimising perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2010
, pp
CD001888
35.
Shah
SV
,
Gage
BF
:
Cost-effectiveness of dabigatran for stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation.
Circulation
2011
;
123
:
2562
70
36.
Fawsitt
CG
,
Bourke
J
,
Greene
RA
,
Everard
CM
,
Murphy
A
,
Lutomski
JE
:
At what price? A cost-effectiveness analysis comparing trial of labour after previous caesarean versus elective repeat caesarean delivery.
PLoS One
2013
;
8
:
e58577
37.
Xu
X
,
Ivy
JS
,
Patel
DA
,
Patel
SN
,
Smith
DG
,
Ransom
SB
,
Fenner
D
,
Delancey
JO
:
Pelvic floor consequences of cesarean delivery on maternal request in women with a single birth: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
J Womens Health (Larchmt)
2010
;
19
:
147
60
38.
Chung
A
,
Macario
A
,
El-Sayed
YY
,
Riley
ET
,
Duncan
B
,
Druzin
ML
:
Cost-effectiveness of a trial of labor after previous cesarean.
Obstet Gynecol
2001
;
97
:
932
41
39.
Culligan
PJ
,
Myers
JA
,
Goldberg
RP
,
Blackwell
L
,
Gohmann
SF
,
Abell
TD
:
Elective cesarean section to prevent anal incontinence and brachial plexus injuries associated with macrosomia: A decision analysis.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
2005
;
16
:
19
28
40.
Harris
RA
,
Washington
AE
,
Nease
RF
Jr
,
Kuppermann
M
:
Cost utility of prenatal diagnosis and the risk-based threshold.
Lancet
2004
;
363
:
276
82
41.
Huisman
EL
,
van Eerd
MC
,
Ouwens
JN
,
de Peuter
MA
:
Cost-effectiveness and budget impact study of solvent/detergent (SD) treated plasma (octaplasLG®) versus fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) in any patient receiving transfusion in Canada.
Transfus Apher Sci
2014
;
51
:
25
34
42.
Kuppermann
M
,
Feeny
D
,
Gates
E
,
Posner
SF
,
Blumberg
B
,
Washington
AE
:
Preferences of women facing a prenatal diagnostic choice: Long-term outcomes matter most.
Prenat Diagn
1999
;
19
:
711
6
43.
Mankuta
DD
,
Leshno
MM
,
Menasche
MM
,
Brezis
MM
:
Vaginal birth after cesarean section: Trial of labor or repeat cesarean section? A decision analysis.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
2003
;
189
:
714
9
44.
Mission
JF
,
Ohno
MS
,
Cheng
YW
,
Caughey
AB
:
Gestational diabetes screening with the new IADPSG guidelines: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
2012
;
207
:
326.e1
9
45.
Ohno
MS
,
Sparks
TN
,
Cheng
YW
,
Caughey
AB
:
Treating mild gestational diabetes mellitus: A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
2011
;
205
:
282.e1
7
46.
Roberts
TE
,
Tsourapas
A
,
Middleton
LJ
,
Champaneria
R
,
Daniels
JP
,
Cooper
KG
,
Bhattacharya
S
,
Barton
PM
:
Hysterectomy, endometrial ablation, and levonorgestrel releasing intrauterine system (Mirena) for treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding: Cost effectiveness analysis.
BMJ
2011
;
342
:
d2202
47.
Schousboe
JT
,
Brown
GA
:
Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin compared with aspirin for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism after total joint arthroplasty.
J Bone Joint Surg Am
2013
;
95
:
1256
64
48.
Tan
JM
,
Macario
A
,
Carvalho
B
,
Druzin
ML
,
El-Sayed
YY
:
Cost-effectiveness of external cephalic version for term breech presentation.
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
2010
;
10
:
3
49.
Braithwaite
RS
,
Meltzer
DO
,
King
JT
Jr
,
Leslie
D
,
Roberts
MS
:
What does the value of modern medicine say about the $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year decision rule? Med Care 2008 ; 46 : 349 56 50. Neumann PJ , Cohen JT , Weinstein MC : Updating cost-effectiveness: The curious resilience of the$50,000-per-QALY threshold.
N Engl J Med
2014
;
371
:
796
7
51.
Szpisjak
DF
,
Potter
PS
,
Capehart
BP
:
Economic analysis of an intraoperative cell salvage service.
Anesth Analg
2004
;
98
:
201
5
52.
Waters
JH
,
Dyga
RM
,
Waters
JF
,
Yazer
MH
:
The volume of returned red blood cells in a large blood salvage program: Where does it all go?
Transfusion
2011
;
51
:
2126
32
53.
Waters
JR
,
Meier
HH
,
Waters
JH
:
An economic analysis of costs associated with development of a cell salvage program.
Anesth Analg
2007
;
104
:
869
75
54.
Brearton
C
,
Bhalla
A
,
Mallaiah
S
,
Barclay
P
:
The economic benefits of cell salvage in obstetric haemorrhage.
Int J Obstet Anesth
2012
;
21
:
329
33