Cost-Effectiveness of Extended Thromboprophylaxis in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery from a Canadian Health Care System Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence to support extended thromboprophylaxis after colorectal surgery to minimize the incidence of postdischarge venous thromboembolic events. However, the absolute number of events is small, and extended thromboprophylaxis requires significant resources from the health care system. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of extended thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing colorectal surgery for malignancy or IBD. DESIGN: An individualized patient microsimulation model (1,000,000 patients; 1-month cycle length) comparing extended thromboprophylaxis (28-day course of enoxaparin) to standard management (inpatient administration only) after colorectal surgery was constructed. SETTINGS: The sources for this study were The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project Participant User File and literature searches. OUTCOMES: Costs (Canadian dollars), quality-adjusted life-years, and venous thromboembolism-related deaths prevented over a 1-year time horizon starting with hospital discharge were determined. The results were stratified by malignancy or IBD. RESULTS: In patients with malignancy, extended prophylaxis was associated with higher costs (+113$; 95% CI, 102-123), but increased quality-adjusted life-years (+0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.06), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2473$/quality-adjusted life-year. For IBD, extended prophylaxis also had higher costs (+116$; 95% CI, 109-123), more quality-adjusted life-years (+0.05; 95% CI, 0.04-0.06), and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 2475$/quality-adjusted life-year. Extended prophylaxis prevented 16 (95% CI, 4-27) venous thromboembolism-related deaths per 100,000 patients and 22 (95% CI, 6-38) for malignancy and IBD. There was a 99.7% probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 50,000$/quality-adjusted life-year. To account for statistical uncertainty around variables, sensitivity analysis was performed and found that extended prophylaxis is associated with lower overall costs when the incidence of postdischarge venous thromboembolic events reaches 1.8%. LIMITATIONS: Significant differences in health care systems may affect the generalizability of our results. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the rarity of venous thromboembolic events, extended thromboprophylaxis is a cost-effective strategy. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A976. COSTO-EFECTIVIDAD DE LA TROMBOPROFILAXIS EXTENDIDA EN PACIENTES SOMETIDOS A CIRUGÍA COLORRECTAL DESDE UNA PERSPECTIVA DEL SISTEMA DE SALUD CANADIENSE:: Cada vez hay más pruebas que apoyen la tromboprofilaxis extendida después de la cirugía colorrectal para minimizar la incidencia de eventos tromboembólicos venosos después del alta hospitalaria. Sin embargo, el número absoluto de eventos es pequeño y la tromboprofilaxis extendida requiere recursos significativos del sistema médico.Determinar la rentabilidad (relación costo-efectividad) de la tromboprofilaxis extendida en pacientes sometidos a cirugía colorrectal por neoplasia maligna o enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal.Un modelo de microsimulación de paciente individualizado (1,000,000 de pacientes; ciclo de 1 mes) que compara la tromboprofilaxis extendida (curso de enoxaparina de 28 días) con el tratamiento estándar (solo para pacientes hospitalizados) después de la cirugía colorrectal.Archivo de usuario participante del Proyecto de Mejoramiento de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Nacional de Cirujanos Americanos (ACS-NSQIP) y búsquedas bibliográficas.Costos (en dólares Canadienses), años de vida ajustados por la calidad y muertes relacionadas con el tromboembolismo venoso prevenidas en un horizonte temporal de 1 año a partir del alta hospitalaria. Los resultados fueron estratificados por malignidad o enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal.En pacientes con neoplasias malignas, la profilaxis extendida se asoció con costos más altos (+113 $; IC del 95%, 102-123), pero con un aumento de la calidad de vida ajustada por años de vida (+0.05; IC del 95%, 0.04-0.06), lo que resultó en un incremento de relación costo-efectividad de 2473 $/año de vida ajustado por calidad. Para la enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, la profilaxis extendida también tuvo costos más altos (+116 $; 95% IC, 109-123), más años de vida ajustados por calidad (+0.05; 95% IC, 0.04-0.06) y una relación costo-efectividad incremental de 2475 $/año de vida ajustado por calidad. La profilaxis prolongada evitó 16 (95% IC, 4-27) muertes relacionadas con tromboembolismo venoso por cada 100,000 pacientes y 22 (95% IC, 6-38) por malignidad y enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal, respectivamente. Hubo un 99.7% de probabilidad de costo-efectividad en un límite de disposición a pagar de 50,000 $/año de vida ajustado por calidad. Para tener en cuenta la incertidumbre estadística en torno a los variables, se realizó un análisis de sensibilidad y se encontró que la profilaxis extendida se asocia con menores costos generales cuando la incidencia de eventos tromboembólicos venosos después del alta hospitalaria alcanza 1.8%.Las diferencias significativas en los sistemas de salud pueden afectar la generalización de nuestros resultados.A pesar de la escasez de eventos tromboembólicos venosos, la tromboprofilaxis extendida es una estrategia rentable. Vea el video del resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/A976.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".