Key result
Appropriate anticoagulant prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk-adjusted rate of clinical VTE at 180 days compared to no prophylaxis (1.30% vs 2.99%, HR 0.37) in hospitalized medically ill patients.
Why the study?
Does appropriate anticoagulant prophylaxis reduce clinical VTE and healthcare costs in hospitalized medically ill patients?
Cohort (n=11,135)
Yes
Does appropriate anticoagulant prophylaxis reduce clinical VTE and healthcare costs in hospitalized medically ill patients?
Appropriate anticoagulant prophylaxis in hospitalized medically ill patients significantly reduces the risk of VTE and lowers healthcare costs up to 180 days post-discharge without significantly increasing bleeding risk.
Supports prophylaxis consideration in medical inpatients; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm net benefit and costs.
BACKGROUND: To assess the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding events with or without thromboprophylaxis and the associated costs in a cohort of medically ill patients in both in-hospital and outpatient settings. METHODS: A large hospital drug database and linked outpatient files were used to identify patients eligible for this analysis, based on demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Among 11,135 patients identified, 1592 (14.30%) were admitted with chronic heart failure, 1684 (15.12%) with thromboembolic stroke, 3834 (34.43%) with severe lung disease, 1658 (14.89%) with acute infection, and 2367 (21.26%) with cancer. Of the 11,135 patients, 5932 received anticoagulant therapy at some point during their hospitalization and until 30 days after discharge. VTE events occurred in 1.30% of patients who received anticoagulant prophylaxis versus 2.99% of patients who did not. Risk-adjusted total healthcare costs for patients with a VTE or major or minor bleeding event were significantly higher than for those without events (VTE: $52,157 ± 24,389 vs $24,164 ± 11,418; major bleeding: $33,656 ± 18,196 vs $24,765 ± 11,974; minor bleeding: $33,690 ± 14,398 vs $23,610 ± 11,873). In a multivariate analysis, appropriate anticoagulant prophylaxis use was significantly associated with a reduced risk of clinical VTE, compared with no anticoagulant use (hazard ratio: 0.37). Patients admitted with thromboembolic stroke were less likely to have a VTE than patients admitted with cancer (hazard ratio: 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, VTE and major bleeding event rates were lower for patients who received prophylaxis compared with those who did not. Prophylaxis use was associated with lower healthcare costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2011) conducted a cohort in Acute medical illness (chronic heart failure, thromboembolic stroke, severe lung disease, acute infection, cancer) (n=11,135). Appropriate anticoagulant prophylaxis vs. No appropriate anticoagulant prophylaxis was evaluated on Clinical venous thromboembolism (VTE) at 180 days (HR 0.37, p=<0.0001). Appropriate anticoagulant prophylaxis significantly reduced the risk-adjusted rate of clinical VTE at 180 days compared to no prophylaxis (1.30% vs 2.99%, HR 0.37) in hospitalized medically ill patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: