An economic analysis of patient controlled remifentanil and epidural analgesia as pain relief in labour (RAVEL trial); a randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the costs of a strategy of patient controlled remifentanil versus epidural analgesia for pain relief in labour. Design We performed a multicentre randomised controlled trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands, the RAVEL trial. Costs were analysed from a health care perspective alongside the RAVEL trial. Population Pregnant women of intermediate to high risk beyond 32 weeks gestation who planned vaginal delivery. Methods Women were randomised before the onset of labour, to receive either patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia when pain relief was requested during labour. Main outcome measures Primary outcome for effectiveness was satisfaction with pain relief, expressed as the area under the curve (AUC). A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Here, we present an economic analysis from a health care perspective including costs from the start of labour to ten days postpartum. Health-care utilization was documented in the Case Report Forms and by administering an additional questionnaire. Results The costs in the patient controlled remifentanil group (n = 687) and in the epidural group (n = 671) were (sic)2900 versus (sic)3185 respectively (mean difference of -(sic)282 (95% CI -(sic)611 to (sic)47)). The (non-significant) higher costs in the epidural analgesia group could be mainly attributed to higher costs of neonatal admission. Conclusion From an economic perspective, there is no preferential pain treatment in labouring intermediate to high risk women. Since patient controlled remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to AUC for satisfaction with pain relief we recommend epidural analgesia as the method of choice. However, if appropriately counselled on effect and side effects there is, from an economic perspective, no reason to deny women patient controlled remifentanil