van den Belt A G, Bossuyt P M, Prins M H, Gallus A S, Büller H R
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Thromb Haemost. 1998 Feb;79(2):259-63.
Two clinical trials in patients with acute deep venous thrombosis have indicated that the outpatient management with fixed-dose, subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin is at least as effective and safe as inpatient treatment with unfractionated intravenous heparin with respect to recurrent venous thromboembolism and major bleeding. We performed an economic evaluation alongside one of these trials to assess the cost consequences of the outpatient management strategy. Data were collected through case record forms, complemented by a prospective questionnaire in 78 consecutive patients, interviews with health care providers, and hospital data bases. Our study demonstrated that seventy-five percent of patients allocated to low-molecular-weight heparin received treatment either entirely at home or after a brief hospital stay. Fifteen percent of these patients required professional domiciliary care. Within-centre comparisons of resource utilisation in terms of natural units showed that outpatient management with low-molecular-weight heparin reduced the average number of hospital days in the initial treatment period in nine centres by 59 percent (95% CI: 43 to 71 percent) accompanied by a limited increase in outpatient and professional domiciliary care. The average reduction in hospital days at the end of follow up was 40 percent (95% CI: 25 to 54 percent). A cost-minimisation analysis, focusing on resource utilisation directly related to the treatment of deep venous thrombosis and associated costs in one centre demonstrated a cost reduction of 64 percent (95% CI: 56 to 72 percent) with the outpatient management with low-molecular-weight heparin. These data suggest that outpatient management of patients with proximal venous thrombosis using low-molecular-weight heparin reduces resource utilisation and total treatment cost. Implementation should be preceded by a cautious evaluation of a potential cost shifting and organisational prerequisites.
两项针对急性深静脉血栓形成患者的临床试验表明,就复发性静脉血栓栓塞和大出血而言,门诊使用固定剂量皮下注射低分子量肝素治疗至少与住院静脉注射普通肝素治疗同样有效且安全。我们在其中一项试验的基础上进行了经济评估,以评估门诊治疗策略的成本影响。数据通过病例记录表收集,并辅以对78例连续患者的前瞻性问卷调查、与医疗服务提供者的访谈以及医院数据库。我们的研究表明,分配接受低分子量肝素治疗的患者中有75% 完全在家中接受治疗或在短暂住院后接受治疗。这些患者中有15% 需要专业的家庭护理。以自然单位衡量的资源利用中心内比较显示,低分子量肝素门诊治疗使9个中心初始治疗期的平均住院天数减少了59%(95% CI:43% 至71%),同时门诊和专业家庭护理的增加有限。随访结束时住院天数的平均减少率为40%(95% CI:25% 至54%)。一项成本最小化分析聚焦于与深静脉血栓形成治疗直接相关的资源利用及一个中心的相关成本,结果显示低分子量肝素门诊治疗使成本降低了64%(95% CI:56% 至72%)。这些数据表明,使用低分子量肝素对近端静脉血栓形成患者进行门诊治疗可降低资源利用和总治疗成本。在实施之前,应谨慎评估潜在的成本转移和组织前提条件。