Why the study?
Does desirudin improve cost-effectiveness compared to enoxaparin for DVT prophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip replacement?
Does desirudin improve cost-effectiveness compared to enoxaparin for DVT prophylaxis in patients undergoing total hip replacement?
Desirudin is a highly cost-effective strategy compared to enoxaparin for DVT prophylaxis following total hip replacement surgery.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports desirudin as cost-effective for DVT prophylaxis after hip replacement; leaves open prospective randomized confirmation.
SummaryNew therapies reduce the risk of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) following orthopaedic surgery, but may be more costly than low-molecular-weight heparin, the current standard treatment. Decision analysis and life-table methods were used to model the incremental cost-effectiveness of Revasc® (desirudin) compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (enoxaparin) in DVT prophylaxis following total hip replacement. A health-service perspective (payer, prescriber) was adopted and the principal endpoint was cost/life-year saved over 15 years. Costs were updated from published Swedish data to reflect 1998/9 UK prices and practices.Prophylactic treatment with desirudin rather than enoxaparin for the prevention of thromboembolic complications of hip surgery should lead to an increase of 4.69 life-years/100 patients over 15 years, at an increased cost of £12,026/100 patients: the cost per life-year saved is therefore £2,566. This compares favourably with a range of commonly used alternative interventions. Desirudin is therefore a cost-effective method of preventing postoperative DVT in patients undergoing total hip replacement surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nicolaides et al. (1999) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: