Dataset Information

Comparison of hospital length of stay in patients treated with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants or parenteral agents plus warfarin for venous thromboembolism.

ABSTRACT: Existing research comparing hospital length of stay for patients treated with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants or parenteral bridging to warfarin has been conducted primarily with the agent rivaroxaban. The objective of this study was to compare hospital length of stay between patients initiated on the non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants, apixaban or rivaroxaban, and patients initiated on parenteral anticoagulation agents plus warfarin for the treatment of venous thromboembolism.A retrospective cohort study was conducted at an 859-bed, not-for-profit, teaching hospital. Adult patients admitted for a primary diagnosis of venous thromboembolism between 1 November 2012 and 31 August 2015 and treated with apixaban or rivaroxaban or a parenteral anticoagulant plus warfarin were included in the study. Eligible patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for a primary diagnosis of acute thromboses and emboli and medication administration record data. Individuals using anticoagulation therapy prior to admission, released from the emergency department, or treated with thrombectomy or fibrinolytic therapy were excluded.A total of 152 patients were included in this study. Patient characteristics, including renal function, were similar between study arms. Venous thromboembolism treatment with apixaban or rivaroxaban compared to a parenteral anticoagulant plus warfarin was associated with a reduced hospital length of stay (2.63 vs 5.33 days; p < 0.05) and decreased total hospital cost adjusted to 2015 dollars (US$21,694 vs US$38,851; p = 0.013).These results suggest that treatment with a non-vitamin K anticoagulant may significantly reduce hospital length of stay and total hospital cost compared to a parenteral anticoagulant plus warfarin for patients admitted for venous thromboembolism.

SUBMITTER: Saint CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5521330 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The drug therapy of venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents a significant economic burden to the health-care system in low- and middle-income countries. To understand which anticoagulation therapy is most cost-effective for clinical decision-making , the cost-effectiveness of apixaban (API) versus rivaroxaban (RIV), dabigatran (DAB), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), followed by vitamin K antagonist (VKA), in the treatment of VTE in China was assessed. Methods: To access the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), a long-term cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed using a Markov model with 5 health states. The Markov model was developed using patient data collected from the Xijing Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2021. The time horizon was set at 30 years, and a 6-month cycle length was used in the model. Costs and ICERs were reported in 2020 U.S. dollars. One-way sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were used to test the uncertainties. A Chinese health-care system perspective was used. Results: In the base case, the data of 231 VTE patients were calculated in the base case analysis retrospectively. The RIV group resulted in a mean VTE attributable to 95% effective treatment. API, DAB, and VKA have a negative ICER (-187017.543, -284,674.922, and -9,283.339, respectively) and were absolutely dominated. The Markov model results confirmed this observation. The ICER of the API and RIV was negative (-216176.977), which belongs to the absolute inferiority scheme, and the ICER value of the DAB and VKA versus RIV was positive (110,577.872 and 836,846.343). Since the ICER of DAB and VKA exceeds the threshold, RIV therapy was likely to be the best choice for the treatment of VTE within the acceptable threshold range. The results of the sensitivity analysis revealed that the model output varied mostly with the cost in the DAB on-treatment therapy. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis of 1,000 patients for 30 years, RIV has 100% probability of being cost-effective compared with other regimens when the WTP is $10973 per QALY. When WTP exceeded $148,000, DAB was more cost-effective than RIV. Conclusions: Compared with LMWH + VKA and API, the results proved that RIV may be the most cost-effective treatment for VTE patients in China. Our findings could be helpful for physicians in clinical decision-making to select the appropriate treatment option for VTE.

Project description:ObjectiveSeveral trials had compared the efficacy and safety between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin for acute venous thromboembolism, but the results were incomplete. This updated review comprehensively assessed the efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism.DesignMeta-analysis of randomised control trials. Six databases were searched from January 2000 to December 2018.SettingAdult patients had got non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants or warfarin for venous thromboembolism.ParticipantsRandomised control trials that compared the efficacy and safety between non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin.Main outcome measuresThe efficacy and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants .ResultsSeven studies involving 29,879 cases were included, among which 14,943 cases were assigned to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants group and 14,936 cases to warfarin group. Meta-analysis showed that compared with warfarin, recurrent venous thromboembolism (odds ratio 0.94 [95% confidence interval 0.81 to 1.11]), death related to venous thromboembolism or fatal pulmonary embolism (odds ratio 1.00 [95% confidence interval 0.63 to 1.60]), symptomatic deep-vein thrombosis (odds ratio 0.88 [95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.09]), symptomatic nonfatal pulmonary embolism (odds ratio 1.03 [(95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.30]) and all deaths (odds ratio 0.92 [95% confidence interval 0.76 to 1.12]) are similar in non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants group, but major bleeding event (odds ratio 0.61 [95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.75]) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding event (odds ratio [95% confidence interval 0.53 to 0.85]) are less in non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants group. .ConclusionsFor the treatment of venous thromboembolism, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants is as effective as warfarin, and has a better safety profile than warfarin.

Dataset Information

Comparison of hospital length of stay in patients treated with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants or parenteral agents plus warfarin for venous thromboembolism.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets