Is Rivaroxaban Associated With Shorter Hospital Stays and Reduced Costs Versus Parenteral Bridging to Warfarin Among Patients With Pulmonary Embolism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the length of stay (LOS) and total costs for patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) treated with either rivaroxaban or parenterally bridged warfarin. METHODS: This retrospective claims analysis was performed in the Premier Database from November 2012 to March 2015. Adult patients were included if they had a hospital encounter for PE (an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code = 415.1×) in the primary position, a claim for ≥1 diagnostic test for PE on day 0 to 2, and initiated rivaroxaban or parenteral anticoagulation/warfarin. Rivaroxaban users (allowing ≤2 days of prior parenteral therapy) were 1:1 propensity score matched to patients receiving parenterally bridged warfarin. Length of stay, total costs, and readmission for venous thromboembolism (VTE) or major bleeding during the same or subsequent 2 months following the index event were compared between cohorts. Analysis restricted to patients with low-risk PE was also performed. RESULTS: Characteristics of the matched PE cohorts (n = 3466 per treatment) were well balanced. Rivaroxaban use was associated with a 1.36-day shorter LOS and $2304 reduction in total costs compared to parenterally bridged warfarin ( P < .001 for both). Rates of readmission for VTE were similar between cohorts (1.7% vs 1.6%; P = .64). No difference was observed between treatments for readmission for major bleeding (0.2% vs 0.2%; P > .99). In analyses restricted to low-risk patients (n = 1551 per treatment), rivaroxaban was associated with a 1.01-day and a $1855 reduction in LOS and costs, respectively ( P < .001 for both). Rates of readmission were again similar between treatments ( P > .56 for all). CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban significantly reduced hospital LOS and costs compared to parenterally bridged warfarin, without increasing the risk of readmission.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".