Cost-effectiveness of Fibrinogen Concentrate vs Cryoprecipitate for Treating Acquired Hypofibrinogenemia in Bleeding Adult Cardiac Surgical Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Excessive bleeding requiring fibrinogen replacement is a serious complication of cardiac surgery. However, the relative cost-effectiveness of the 2 available therapies-fibrinogen concentrate and cryoprecipitate-is unknown. Objective: To determine cost-effectiveness of fibrinogen concentrate vs cryoprecipitate for managing active bleeding in adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: A within-trial economic evaluation of the Fibrinogen Replenishment in Surgery (FIBERS) randomized clinical trial (February 2017 to November 2018) that took place at 4 hospitals based in Ontario, Canada, hospitals examined all in-hospital resource utilization costs and allogeneic blood product (ABP) transfusion costs incurred within 28 days of surgery. Participants included a subset of 495 adult patients from the FIBERS trial who underwent cardiac surgery and developed active bleeding and acquired hypofibrinogenemia requiring fibrinogen replacement. Interventions: Fibrinogen concentrate (4 g per dose) or cryoprecipitate (10 units per dose) randomized (1:1) up to 24 hours postcardiopulmonary bypass. Main Outcomes and Measures: Effectiveness outcomes included number of ABPs administered within 24 hours and 7 days of cardiopulmonary bypass. ABP transfusion (7-day) and in-hospital resource utilization (28-day) costs were evaluated and a multivariable net benefit regression model built for the full sample and predefined subgroups. Results: Patient level costs for 495 patients were evaluated (mean [SD] age 59.2 [15.4] years and 69.3% male.) Consistent with FIBERS, ABP transfusions and adverse events were similar in both treatment groups. Median (IQR) total 7-day ABP cost was CAD $2280 (US dollars [USD] $1697) (CAD $930 [USD $692]-CAD $4970 [USD $3701]) in the fibrinogen concentrate group and CAD $2770 (USD $1690) (IQR, CAD $1140 [USD $849]-CAD $5000 [USD $3723]) in the cryoprecipitate group. Median (interquartile range) total 28-day cost was CAD $38 180 (USD $28 431) $(IQR, CAD $26 350 [USD $19 622]-CAD $65 080 [USD $48 463]) in the fibrinogen concentrate group and CAD $38 790 (USD $28 886) (IQR, CAD $26 180 [USD $19 495]-CAD $70 380 [USD $52 409]) in the cryoprecipitate group. After exclusion of patients who were critically ill before surgery (11%) due to substantial variability in costs, the incremental net benefit of fibrinogen concentrate vs cryoprecipitate was positive (probability of being cost-effective 86% and 97% at $0 and CAD $2000 (USD $1489) willingness-to-pay, respectively). Net benefit was highly uncertain for nonelective and patients with critical illness. Conclusions and Relevance: Fibrinogen concentrate is cost-effective when compared with cryoprecipitate in most bleeding adult patients who underwent cardiac surgery with acquired hypofibrinogenemia requiring fibrinogen replacement. The generalizability of these findings outside the Canadian health system needs to be verified.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".