Replacing Inpatient Care by Outpatient Care in the Treatment of Deep Venous Thrombosis – An Economic Evaluation

Summary

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.

• References

• 1 Prandoni P, Lensing AWA, Büller HR, Carta M, Cogo A, Vigo M, Casara D, Ruol A, ten Cate JW. Comparison of subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin with intravenous standard heparin in proximal deep-vein thrombosis. Lancet 1992; 339: 441-5.
• 2 Hull RD, Raskob GE, Pineo GF, Green D, Trowbridge AA, Elliott CG, Lerner RG, Hall J, Sparling T, Brettell HR. et al. Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin compared with continuous intravenous heparin in the treatment of proximal-vein thrombosis. N Eng J Med 1992; 326: 975-82.
• 3 Lopaciuk S, Meissner AJ, Filipecki S, Zawilska K, Sowier J, Ciesielski L, Bielawiec M, Glowinski S, Czestochowska E. Subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin versus subcutaneous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis: a Polish multicenter trial. Thromb Haemost 1992; 68: 14-8.
• 4 Lindmarker P, Holmström M, Granqvist S, Johnsson H, Lockner D. Com parison of once-daily subcutaneous Fragmin with continuous intravenous unfractionated heparin in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis. Thromb Haemost 1994; 72: 186-90.
• 5 Lensing AWA, Prins MH, Davidson BL, Hirsh J. Treatment of deep vein thrombosis with low molecular weight heparins. A Meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 601-7.
• 6 Koopman MMW, Prandoni P, Piovella F, Ockelford PA, Brandjes DP, van der Meer J, Gallus AS, Simonneau G, Chesterman CH, Prins MH. et al. Treatment of venous thrombosis with intravenous unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital as compared with subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin administered at home. N Eng J Med 1996; 334: 682-7.
• 7 Levine M, Gent M, Hirsh J, Leclerc J, Anderson D, Weitz J, Ginsberg J, Turpie AG, Demers C, Kovacs M. et al. A comparison of low-molecular-weight heparin administered primarily at home with unfractionated heparin administered in the hospital for proximal deep-vein thrombosis. N Eng J Med 1996; 334: 677-81.
• 8 Scott A. A cost analysis of early discharge and domiciliary visits versus standard hospital care for low-risk obstetric clients. Aust J Public Health 1994; 18: 96-100.
• 9 Drummond MF, Davies L. Economic analysis alongside clinical trials: revisiting the methodological issues. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1991; 7: 561-73.
• 10 Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM, Miltenburg ThEM. Costs of home care for advanced breast and cervical cancer in relation to cost-effectiveness of screening. Soc Sci Med 1992; 35: 979-85.
• 11 van Ineveld BM, van Oortmarssen GJ, de Koning HJ, Boer R, van der Maas PJ. How cost-effective is breast cancer screening in different EC countries?. Eur J Cancer 1993; 29A (12) 1663-8.
• 12 Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC, Braun P, McNeil BJ. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach. Med Dec Making 1985; 9: 1229-42.
• 13 Morgan M, Beech R. Variations in lengths of stay and rates of day case surgery: implications for the efficiency of surgical management. J Epidemiol Community Health 1990; 44: 90-105.