Why the study?
Does low-molecular-weight heparin improve cost-effectiveness compared to unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis and bridging therapy?
Does low-molecular-weight heparin improve cost-effectiveness compared to unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis and bridging therapy?
Low-molecular-weight heparins offer superior cost-effectiveness and comparable safety to unfractionated heparins for VTE prophylaxis and bridging therapy.
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a potentially fatal vascular disease that affects more than 170,000 patients in the USA every year. All hospitalized patients are at an increased risk of developing VTE and subsequent pulmonary embolus. There is growing literature concentrating on the cost-effectiveness of preventing VTE occurring. So far recommendations have been conflicting and research has not explored the use of VTE prophylaxis in low-risk patient groups. Comparisons between low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) and unfractionated heparins have revealed that LMWHs are superior not only in action but also in cost-effectiveness. In elective surgery, patients who require long-term anticoagulation bridging therapy with LMWH at home have shown comparable safety and efficacy and the method is far less costly than inpatient bridging therapy with unfractionated heparin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sharp et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: