Subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin vs warfarin for prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis after hip or knee implantation. An economic perspective.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism present a major clinical threat to patients undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty. We performed an economic evaluation of warfarin sodium and subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin sodium prophylaxis comparing cost and effectiveness. METHODS: A consecutive series of 1436 patients who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty comparing these 2 regimens in a randomized trial with objective documentation of outcomes provided the opportunity to perform economic evaluations for Canada and the United States. RESULTS: Deep vein thrombosis was documented in 231 (37.4%) of 617 patients given warfarin and in 185 (31.4%) of 590 patients given low-molecular-weight heparin (P = .03). In Canada, warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin sodium) incurred costs per 100 patients of $11,598 and $9,197, respectively, providing a cost savings of $2,401 for the low-molecular-weight heparin group. The drug cost of low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin) was $6 per day and for warfarin was $0.32 per day. Sensitivity analysis showed that low-molecular-weight heparin is more costly if drug costs are increased by 1.5-fold (ie, the cost of tinzaparin is increased from $6 per day to $8.82 per day or more). In the United States, the analysis was also not definitive; low-molecular-weight heparin was more costly than warfarin at drug costs of $15 and $2.01 per day, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the decision to use low-molecular-weight heparin or warfarin prophylaxis in patients undergoing major joint replacement surgery is a finely tuned trade-off. Prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin is equally or more effective than the more complex prophylaxis with warfarin. Major bleeding is uncommon but less frequent with warfarin use. The most significant parameters that influence the comparative cost-effectiveness are the cost of the drug, the cost of international normalized ratio monitoring, and the costs associated with major bleeding. The analysis also demonstrates that the results are health care system dependent (Canada vs US). In Canada, low-molecular-weight heparin (tinzaparin) is less costly because it avoids the need for international normalized ratio monitoring. In the United States, the drug cost for low-molecular-weight heparin will likely be the principal determinant of relative cost-effectiveness.

Cost-effectiveness of pulmonary embolism diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, improvements in the methods of clinical trials and the use of objective tests to detect venous thrombosis have enhanced the clinician's ability to diagnose pulmonary embolism. OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the commonly recommended strategies for pulmonary embolism diagnosis and management. METHODS: Two criteria of effectiveness were used: correct identification of pulmonary embolism and correct identification of patients in whom treatment was unnecessary. The cost of each diagnostic alternative was defined as the direct cost of administering the diagnostic test plus the treatment cost associated with a positive test result. Data derived from a decision analysis published separately on 662 patients were used for this study. RESULTS: A strategy based on the use of ventilation-perfusion lung scans, serial impedance plethysmography, and pulmonary angiography was the most cost-effective. It remained so under all possible variations within the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The strategy that requires pulmonary angiography in the fewest patients is a combination of ventilation-perfusion lung scans and serial impedance plethysmography. This strategy also proved to be the most cost-effective.

Cost effectiveness of diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis in symptomatic patients.

BACKGROUND: The most widely used noninvasive test for deep vein thrombosis is Doppler ultrasonographic imaging of the lower extremities. The best evaluated of the noninvasive approaches are ascending contrast venography, impedance plethysmography, Doppler ultrasonography with B-mode imaging. Economic evaluation is aimed at helping decision makers to reach their goal of maximizing the health of the population served, subject to the available resources. METHODS: The data that provided the basis for this cost effectiveness analysis were derived from a prospective study of approximately 500 patients referred to a regional thromboembolism program with a first episode of clinically suspected deep vein thrombosis. The application of cost effectiveness analysis to the diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis is readily accomplished using cost minimization. This cost effectiveness technique makes it possible to rank the diagnostic approaches from "worst" to "best", with the best approach defined as that which accomplishes the desired health effect at minimum cost. Effectiveness (health benefit) may be defined in this context as the number or proportion of patients with deep vein thrombosis correctly identified by objective testing or, the number or proportion in whom treatment was correctly withheld. RESULTS: Clinical diagnosis is cost ineffective; $1,590,784 Canadian, $2,624,220 US. Outpatient diagnosis using noninvasive testing was the most cost effective. Serial Doppler ultrasonography is more costly ($618,265 Canadian, $1,326,180 US) than serial impedance plethysmography ($527,165 Canadian, $1,052,880 US). Combined Doppler ultrasonography and serial impedance plethysmography offers a less costly strategy ($551,065 Canadian, $1,124,580 US) than serial ultrasonography alone. DISCUSSION: Objective testing is mandatory. Outpatient testing is preferred, avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions. Noninvasive testing is the most cost effective. The most widely used test, serial Doppler ultrasonography, is less cost effective than serial impedance plethysmography. The combined approach of initial Doppler ultrasonography followed by serial impedance plethysmography combines the advantage of an initial ultrasound image with less costly serial impedance plethysmography.