Reduced Costs and Length-of-Stay Associated with Rivaroxaban As Compared to Parenteral Bridging and Warfarin in Pulmonary Embolism Patients Managed in Observation Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Observation stays are intended to assess patients for short periods (i.e., <2-midnights) to determine need for inpatient admission or discharge. Unlike rivaroxaban, treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) with parenteral bridging to warfarin requires frequent coagulation monitoring and dosing adjustments that may prolong length-of-stay (LOS) and increase hospital treatment costs. Objective: To compare LOS, hospital treatment costs, and readmissions in PE patients managed through observation stays treated with either rivaroxaban or parenterally-bridged warfarin. Methods: US Premier Hospital claims data spanning 11/2012-9/2015 was used to identify patients with a primary diagnosis code for PE (415.1x) managed through an observation stay and having ³1 claim for a PE-related diagnostic test on day 0-2. Rivaroxaban users, allowing ²2 days of prior parenteral therapy, were 1:1 propensity-score matched to patients parenterally bridged to warfarin. LOS, the proportion of encounters lasting >2-midnights, total hospital costs and risk of readmission for venous thromboembolism (VTE) or major bleeding during the same month or 2 months subsequent to the index event were compared between propensity-score-matched treatment cohorts. Results: A total of 401 rivaroxaban patients were matched to 401 patients receiving parenteral bridging to warfarin.Rivaroxaban use was associated with a shorter LOS (-0.25 days), fewer encounters lasting >2 midnights (21.1% vs. 32.7%) and lower total hospital costs (-$240) vs. parenteral bridging to warfarin (p²0.03 for all) (Table). Readmission was similar between cohorts (p>0.99 for both VTE and major bleeding readmission). Conclusion: Shorter LOS and lower hospital costs occurred with rivaroxaban vs. parenteral bridging to warfarin in PE observation stay patients. This was achieved without increasing short-term risk of VTE or major bleeding readmission. Table Table. Disclosures Peacock: Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding. Fermann:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding. Baugh:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Roche Diagnostics: Other: Advisory Board. Wells:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squib: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Other: Advisory Board, Speakers Bureau; Itreas: Other: Writing Committee. Ashton:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Raritan, New Jersey: Employment. Crivera:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Raritan, New Jersey: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wildgoose:Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC, Raritan, New Jersey: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schein:Johnson & Johnson: Employment, Equity Ownership, Other: Own in excess of $10,000 of J&J stock. Coleman:Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer Pharmaceuticals AG: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".