Why the study?
Is low-molecular-weight heparin more cost-effective than low-dose unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis in patients following major trauma?
Is low-molecular-weight heparin more cost-effective than low-dose unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis in patients following major trauma?
The cost-effectiveness of low-molecular-weight heparin versus low-dose unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis in major trauma varies depending on the economic model used, with more comprehensive models favoring unfractionated heparin.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cost-effectiveness remains model-dependent; leaves open optimal VTE prophylaxis choice after major trauma.
Venous thromboembolism is a life-threatening complication in patients following major trauma. These patients are at increased risk of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. In the absence of a major contraindication, anticoagulant prophylaxis with either low-dose unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin is recommended. The objectives of this study were to undertake a systematic review and critically evaluate published cost-effectiveness analyses of anticoagulant prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis following major trauma. The results of the identified studies varied significantly, from enoxaparin being the dominant strategy based on the cost-per-deep-vein thrombosis averted, to low-dose unfractionated heparin being the dominant strategy based on the cost per life-year gained. In general, the more comprehensive the model, the more favorable the results were towards low-dose unfractionated heparin.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Regier et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: