The Stan Method is cost-effective
Two cost-effectiveness (CE) studies of the use of ST Analysis as a compliment to CTG alone during labour have reached the same result, namely that ST Analysis is a cost-effective method.
Both studies came to similar results:
- CTG + ST Analysis is the cost-effective method both in a long- and a shorter time perspective
- The Stan Method means less risk of injured babies at a lower cost
- Additional costs for ST Analysis are very limited compared to total cost of labour
- The initial cost of implementing Stan is an investment that will pay off
- The cost of saving one baby from risk of injury is less than 25% of the annual cost of caring for a child with CP
Heintz et al (BJOG 2008) calculated the life-long CE based on the Cochrane Meta analysis. Vijgen et al (Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011) performed the CE study alongside the Dutch RCT with a short, health-care provider perspective.
The Stan Method results in reduced metabolic acidosis at birth
In a prospective clinical study conducted over 7 years, 12,832 term pregnancies were analysed. Cord blood metabolic acidosis and neonatal outcome were main outcome measures.
- The rate of using Stan increased from 26 to 69%
- The rate of cord metabolic acidosis was reduced from 0.72 to 0.06%
- The 91.7% improvement was associated with a significantly better quality of care (interpretation of tracings and timely action)
Norén & Carlsson Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010.
Zero rate of cases with risk of permanent brain injury
The Stan Method was first implemented in the L&D ward in Akershus hospital in 2001. In 2007 the department was fully equipped with one Stan in each of the eight labour room.
In 2008 the hospital reported:
- 4200 deliveries
- Eight children diagnosed as “birth asfyxia” (0.19%)
- No children with HIE grad II and III and pH<7.0, indicating risk of brain injury
The report concludes that the reduction has continued since the introduction of the Stan Method in the hospital.
Sørnes 2008, Yearly report from Akershus Norway
