[Comparison of ambulatory and inpatient treatment of acute deep venous thrombosis of the leg: subjective and economic aspects].

The frequency of clinical recurrence and pulmonary embolism in patients with acute deep venous thrombosis is reduced to the same extent by hospital treatment (with unfractionated heparin) as by treatment at home (with low-molecular-weight heparin). Very few data on subjective parameters of effectiveness have been published. We performed a prospective randomized trial comparing outpatient with in-hospital treatment in 28 patients. Six clinical and quality-of-life related parameters of effectiveness were assessed quantitatively: clinical course (with a score system), pain of venous congestion of the calf muscles (with Lowenberg's test), subjective perception of pain and general well-being (with visual analogue scales), satisfaction with the care provided, and absence from work. Subjective effectiveness was compared with the costs of each form of treatment. Outpatient treatment was significantly more effective than in-hospital treatment with regard to the objective parameters. It was, however, associated with less well-being and more pain than in-hospital treatment. The discrepancy is explained by eventually insufficient adjuvant treatment measures (which consisted of external leg compression by stockings and forced walking) and by anxiety brought on by the information that potentially lethal pulmonary embolism could occur despite anticoagulant therapy. Outpatient treatment was less costly. On the average and per patient it was CHF 3944 less expensive than treatment in hospital. An estimation reveals that the Swiss health care system would save about CHF 25 million per year if the 85% of patients with deep-vein thrombosis suitable for home care were given this form of treatment. We conclude that outpatient management is subjectively cost-effective but should be optimised to eliminate certain drawbacks associated with it.