Leeds Ira L, Sklow Bradford, Gorgun Emre, Liska David, Lightner Amy L, Hull Tracy L, Steele Scott R, Holubar Stefan D
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Ave, A30, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Division of Colon & Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
J Gastrointest Surg. 2022 Jun;26(6):1275-1285. doi: 10.1007/s11605-022-05287-z. Epub 2022 Mar 11.
Venous thromboembolism extended prophylaxis after inflammatory bowel disease surgery remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if adopting an aspirin-based prophylaxis strategy may address current cost-effectiveness limitations.
A decision analysis model was used to compare costs and outcomes of a reference case patient undergoing inflammatory bowel disease-associated colorectal surgery considered for post-discharge thromboembolism prophylaxis. Low-dose aspirin was compared to an enoxaparin regimen as well as no prophylaxis. Source estimates were obtained from aggregated existing literature. Secondary analysis included out-of-pocket costs. A 10,000-simulation Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analysis accounted for uncertainty in model estimates.
An enoxaparin-based regimen compared to aspirin demonstrated an unfavorable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $908,268 per quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis supported this finding in > 75% of simulated cases; scenarios favoring enoxaparin included those with > 4% post-discharge event rates. Aspirin versus no prophylaxis demonstrated a favorable ratio of $106,601 per quality-adjusted life year. Findings were vulnerable to a post-discharge thromboembolism rate < 1%, aspirin-associated bleeding rate > 1%, median hospital costs of bleeding > 3 × , and decreased efficacy of aspirin (RR > 0.75). The average out-of-pocket cost of choosing an aspirin ePpx strategy increased by $54 per patient versus $708 per patient with enoxaparin.
Low-dose aspirin extended prophylaxis following inflammatory bowel disease surgery has a favorable cost-safety profile and may be an attractive alternative approach.
炎症性肠病手术后静脉血栓栓塞的延长预防仍存在争议。本研究的目的是评估采用基于阿司匹林的预防策略是否可以解决当前成本效益方面的局限性。
采用决策分析模型比较接受炎症性肠病相关结直肠手术的参考病例患者出院后血栓栓塞预防的成本和结果。将低剂量阿司匹林与依诺肝素方案以及不进行预防进行比较。来源估计取自汇总的现有文献。二次分析包括自付费用。10000次模拟的蒙特卡洛概率敏感性分析考虑了模型估计中的不确定性。
与阿司匹林相比,基于依诺肝素的方案显示每质量调整生命年的增量成本效益比不利,为908268美元。敏感性分析在超过75%的模拟病例中支持了这一发现;有利于依诺肝素的情况包括出院后事件发生率超过4%的情况。阿司匹林与不进行预防相比,每质量调整生命年的比率为106601美元,较为有利。研究结果容易受到出院后血栓栓塞率低于1%、阿司匹林相关出血率高于1%、出血的中位住院成本超过3倍以及阿司匹林疗效降低(相对风险>0.75)的影响。选择阿司匹林延长预防策略的平均自付费用每位患者增加54美元,而依诺肝素为每位患者708美元。
炎症性肠病手术后低剂量阿司匹林延长预防具有良好的成本安全性,可能是一种有吸引力的替代方法。