Weeda Erin R, Wells Philip S, Peacock W Frank, Fermann Gregory J, Baugh Christopher W, Ashton Veronica, Crivera Concetta, Wildgoose Peter, Schein Jeff R, Coleman Craig I
School of Pharmacy, University of Connecticut, 69 North Eagleville Road, Storrs, CT, 06269, USA.
Department of Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Intern Emerg Med. 2017 Apr;12(3):311-318. doi: 10.1007/s11739-016-1552-1. Epub 2016 Oct 18.
We sought to compare length-of-stay (LOS), total hospital costs, and readmissions among pulmonary embolism (PE) patients treated with rivaroxaban versus parenterally bridged warfarin. We identified adult PE (primary diagnostic code = 415.1x) patients in the Premier Database (11/2012-9/2015), and included those with ≥1 PE diagnostic test on days 0-2. Rivaroxaban users (allowing ≤2 days of prior parenteral therapy) were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients parenterally bridged to warfarin. LOS, total costs, and readmission for venous thromboembolism (VTE) or major bleeding within the same or subsequent 2 months were compared between cohorts. Separate analyses were performed in low-risk PE patients. Rivaroxaban use was associated with a 1.4-day [95 % confidence interval (CI) -1.47 to -1.28] shorter LOS, and $2322 (95 % CI -$2499 to -$2146) reduction in costs compared to parenterally bridged warfarin (p < 0.001 for both). There was no difference in readmission for VTE (1.5 versus 1.7 %) or major bleeding (0.3 versus 0.2 %) between the rivaroxaban and parenterally bridged warfarin cohorts (p ≥ 0.27 for both). Results were similar in low-risk patients (0.2-1.0 day and $251-$1751 reductions in LOS and costs, respectively, p ≤ 0.01 for all). In patients with PE, rivaroxaban was associated with reduced LOS and costs, without increased risk of readmission versus parenterally bridged warfarin. Similar results were observed in low-risk PE patients.
我们试图比较接受利伐沙班治疗的肺栓塞(PE)患者与接受胃肠外桥接华法林治疗的患者之间的住院时间(LOS)、总住院费用和再入院情况。我们在Premier数据库(2012年11月至2015年9月)中识别出成年PE患者(主要诊断编码=415.1x),并纳入那些在第0 - 2天进行了≥1次PE诊断检测的患者。利伐沙班使用者(允许≤2天的先前胃肠外治疗)与接受胃肠外桥接华法林治疗的患者按1:1倾向评分匹配。比较了两组患者的LOS、总费用以及在同一或随后2个月内静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)或大出血的再入院情况。对低风险PE患者进行了单独分析。与胃肠外桥接华法林相比,使用利伐沙班可使LOS缩短1.4天[95%置信区间(CI)-1.47至-1.28],费用降低2322美元(95%CI -2499美元至-2146美元)(两者p均<0.001)。利伐沙班组与胃肠外桥接华法林组在VTE再入院率(1.5%对1.7%)或大出血再入院率(0.3%对0.2%)方面无差异(两者p≥0.27)。低风险患者的结果相似(LOS分别缩短0.2 - 1.0天,费用降低251 - 1751美元,所有p≤0.01)。在PE患者中,与胃肠外桥接华法林相比,利伐沙班可降低LOS和费用,且再入院风险未增加。在低风险PE患者中也观察到了类似结果。