This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rodger, M.
Right arrow Articles by Huebsch, L. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rodger, M.
Right arrow Articles by Huebsch, L. B.

Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol 159, Issue 8 931-938, Copyright © 1998 by Canadian Medical Association

Research * Recherche

Cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin and unfractionated heparin in treatment of deep vein thrombosis

M. Rodger, C. Bredeson, P. S. Wells, J. Beck, B. Kearns and L. B. Huebsch

BACKGROUND: Acute deep vein thrombosis has traditionally been treated with unfractionated heparin (UFH), administered intravenously, but low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), administered subcutaneously, have recently become available. The authors sought to determine which therapy was more cost-effective for inpatient and outpatient treatment of deep vein thrombosis. METHODS: An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis based on a decision tree was performed for 4 treatment strategies for deep vein thrombosis. Rate of major hemorrhage while receiving heparin, rate of recurrence of venous thromboembolism 3 months after treatment and mortality rate 3 months after treatment were determined by meta-analysis. Costs for the UFH therapy were prospectively collected by a case-costing accounting system for 105 patients with deep vein thrombosis treated in fiscal year 1995/96. The costs for LMWH therapy were modelled, and cost-effectiveness was determined by decision analysis. RESULTS: Meta-analysis revealed a mean difference in risk of hemorrhage of -1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.4% to 0.3%), a mean difference in risk of recurrence of venous thromboembolism of -2.6% (95% CI -4.5% to -0.7%) and a mean difference in risk of death of -1.9% (95% CI -3.6% to -0.4%), all in favour of subcutaneous unmonitored administration of LMWH. The cost to treat one inpatient was $2993 for LMWH and $3048 for UFH. Even more would be saved if LMWH was delivered on an outpatient basis (cost of $1641 per patient). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that LMWH in any treatment setting is more cost effective than UFH. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated the robustness of this conclusion. INTERPRETATION: Treatment of deep vein thrombosis with LMWH is more cost effective than treatment with UFH in both inpatient and outpatient settings.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
J. B. Segal, M. B. Streiff, L. V. Hofmann, K. Thornton, and E. B. Bass
Management of Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review for a Practice Guideline
Ann Intern Med, February 6, 2007; 146(3): 211 - 222.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
D. Aujesky, K. J. Smith, J. Cornuz, and M. S. Roberts
Cost-Effectiveness of Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Treatment of Pulmonary Embolism
Chest, September 1, 2005; 128(3): 1601 - 1610.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
S. M. Bates and J. S. Ginsberg
Treatment of Deep-Vein Thrombosis
N. Engl. J. Med., July 15, 2004; 351(3): 268 - 277.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ChestHome page
A. C. Spyropoulos, J. S. Hurley, G. N. Ciesla, and G. de Lissovoy
Management of Acute Proximal Deep Vein Thrombosis* : Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation of Outpatient Treatment With Enoxaparin vs Inpatient Treatment With Unfractionated Heparin
Chest, July 1, 2002; 122(1): 108 - 114.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]