Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
---|---|---|---|---|
4061935 | The Journal of Arthroplasty | 2012 | 6 Pages |
Abstract
Recent comparison (SAFE study) of a mobile, synchronized compression device and low-molecular-weight heparin for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism showed similar efficacy but significant differences in major bleeding. A model was constructed to evaluate any difference in cost-effectiveness between the 2 therapies incorporating rates and probabilities of major bleeding from the SAFE study with published costs for treating those adverse events. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of each therapy was performed and applied to hypothetical patient populations representative of annual health system volume. The model showed a cost-effectiveness advantage of the compression device resulting in a savings of more than $3.69 million in a 10â
000-patient cohort. The result was primarily driven by a decrease in the amount of major bleeding, which requires significant health care resources to treat.
Keywords
Related Topics
Health Sciences
Medicine and Dentistry
Orthopedics, Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation
Authors
Cost-effectiveness Writing Committee Cost-effectiveness Writing Committee,