Key result
Enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis after acute ischemic stroke resulted in lower total hospital costs compared to unfractionated heparin ($782 vs $922), offsetting its higher drug acquisition cost.
Why the study?
Does enoxaparin reduce total hospital costs compared to unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis in patients with acute ischemic stroke?
Does enoxaparin reduce total hospital costs compared to unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis in patients with acute ischemic stroke?
Effect estimate: savings $140
Absolute Event Rate: 782% vs 922%
Enoxaparin is cost-saving compared to unfractionated heparin for VTE prophylaxis in acute ischemic stroke, as reduced clinical events offset higher drug acquisition costs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enoxaparin may lower hospital costs by $140 per patient versus UFH; extends PREVAIL RCT to economic modeling but leaves practice change open.
Pineo et al. (2011) studied Acute ischemic stroke. Enoxaparin vs. Unfractionated heparin (UFH) was evaluated on Total hospital cost (savings $140). Enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis after acute ischemic stroke resulted in lower total hospital costs compared to unfractionated heparin ($782 vs $922), offsetting its higher drug acquisition cost.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: