Anticoagulation stewardship: Improving adherence to clinical guidelines and reducing overuse of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients.

Adherence to guideline recommendations for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients is suboptimal despite national policies and institutional interventions. The aim of this quality improvement project was to improve adherence to guidelines and decrease the overuse of VTE prophylaxis in order to reduce the institutional cost for heparins. A multidisciplinary anticoagulation stewardship program (ACSP) using the audit and feedback strategy was implemented on the medicine inpatient units at a teaching hospital in Canada. The primary outcome measure was a comparison, pre and post introduction of the ACSP, of the costs per 6-month period for prophylactic dose enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin on the medicine units. The balancing measures were the 90-day VTE rate and major bleeding rate during the hospitalization. Six months after the implementation of the ACSP, the cost was decreased by >50 % without any observed negative impact on patient safety. This study demonstrates the potential for anticoagulation stewardship programs to optimize the use of VTE prophylaxis and reduce the associated costs and risks.

A meta-analysis and cost-minimization analysis of bivalirudin versus heparin in high-risk patients for percutaneous coronary intervention.

This meta-analysis was performed to compare the safety, efficacy, and pharmacoeconomic of bivalirudin versus heparin in high-risk patients for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Earlier meta-analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin during PCI demonstrated that bivalirudin caused less bleeding with more stent thrombosis. However, little data were available on the safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in high-risk patients for PCI. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety in the "high-risk" patients. A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted up to July 30, 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were all-cause death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE); secondary outcomes were major and minor bleeding, followed by a cost-minimization analysis comparing bivalirudin and heparin using a local drug and medical costs reported in China. Subgroup analysis was based on the type of disease of the high-risk population. Finally, a total of 10 randomized controlled trials involved 42,699 patients were collected. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was employed to appraise the research quality. No significant difference was noted between bivalirudin and heparin regarding all-cause death and MACE. However, subgroup analysis showed that bivalirudin caused less major bleeding in female (OR:0.65, 95% CI:0.53-0.79), diabetes (OR:0.55, 95%CI:0.42-0.73), and CKD (OR:0.59, 95%CI:0.63-1.65). The scatterers of the included literature were approximately symmetrical, and no research was outside the funnel plot. Additionally, cost-minimization analysis showed that heparin was likely to represent a cost-effective option compared with bivalirudin in China, with potential savings of 2129.53 Chinese Yuan (CNY) per patient for one PCI. Overall, the meta-analysis showed that although bivalirudin appeared to have a lower risk of major bleeding rate, the overall effectiveness and safety between the two groups showed no significant difference in high-risk patients for PCI. But the results of the cost-minimization analysis showed that heparin could be a potential cost-saving drug than bivalirudin in patients for PCI in China.

A tale of two centers: Is low-molecular-weight heparin really superior for prevention of posttraumatic venous thromboembolism?

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is widely used for venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis following injury. However, unfractionated heparin (UFH) is a less expensive option. We compared LMWH and UFH for prevention of posttraumatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: Trauma patients 15 years or older with at least one administration of venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis at two level I trauma centers with similar DVT-screening protocols were identified. Center 1 administered UFH every 8 hours for chemoprophylaxis, and center 2 used twice-daily antifactor Xa-adjusted LMWH. Clinical characteristics and primary chemoprophylaxis agent were evaluated in a two-level logistic regression model. Primary outcome was incidence of DVT and PE. RESULTS: There were 3,654 patients: 1,155 at center 1 and 2,499 at center 2. The unadjusted DVT rate at center 1 was lower than at center 2 (3.5% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.04); PE rates did not significantly differ (0.4% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.64). Patients at center 2 were older (mean, 50.3 vs. 47.3 years; p < 0.001) and had higher Injury Severity Scores (median, 10 vs. 9; p < 0.001), longer stays in the hospital (mean, 9.4 vs. 7.0 days; p < 0.001) and intensive care unit (mean, 3.0 vs. 1.3 days; p < 0.001), and a higher mortality rate (1.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.02) than patients at center 1. Center 1's patients received their first dose of chemoprophylaxis earlier than patients at center 2 (median, 1.0 vs. 1.7 days; p < 0.001). After risk adjustment and accounting for center effects, primary chemoprophylaxis agent was not associated with risk of DVT (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.48; p = 0.949). Cost calculations showed that UFH was less expensive than LMWH. CONCLUSION: Primary utilization of UFH is not inferior to LMWH for posttraumatic DVT chemoprophylaxis and rates of PE are similar. Given that UFH is lower in cost, the choice of this chemoprophylaxis agent may have major economic implications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level II; Therapeutic, level III.

Real-World Comparative Effectiveness and Cost Comparison of Thromboprophylactic Use of Enoxaparin versus Unfractionated Heparin in 376,858 Medically Ill Hospitalized US Patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication in medically ill inpatients. Enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) thromboprophylaxis has been shown to reduce VTE in clinical trials; however, comparative effectiveness and differences in hospital costs are unknown in US hospital practice. OBJECTIVE: This study compared clinical and economic outcomes between enoxaparin and UFH thromboprophylaxis in medically ill inpatients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Premier Healthcare Database between 1 January 2010 and 30 September 2016. Inpatients aged ≥ 18 years with a ≥ 6-day hospital stay for serious medical conditions were included. Two patient groups receiving thromboprophylaxis were identified during hospitalization: one receiving enoxaparin and other receiving UFH. Regression models were constructed to compare VTE events, in-hospital mortality, pulmonary embolism (PE)-related mortality, major bleeding, and total hospital costs during both the index hospitalization and the 90-day readmission period between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 242,474 and 134,384 inpatients received enoxaparin or UFH for thromboprophylaxis, respectively. Compared with UFH prophylaxis, enoxaparin was significantly associated with 15%, 9%, 33%, and 41% reduced odds of VTE, in-hospital mortality, PE-related mortality, and major bleeding, respectively, during index hospitalization, and 10% and 19% reduced odds of VTE and bleeding, respectively, during the readmission period. Mean total hospital costs were significantly lower in patients receiving enoxaparin prophylaxis than in those given UFH. CONCLUSIONS: Thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin was associated with significantly reduced in-hospital VTE events, death, and major bleeding and lower hospital costs compared with UFH in hospitalized medically ill patients.

Comparative Effectiveness and Costs of Enoxaparin Monotherapy Versus Unfractionated Heparin Monotherapy in Treating Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Enoxaparin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) are guideline-recommended anticoagulants for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), including unstable angina (UA) and myocardial infarction with (STEMI) or without ST-segment elevation (NSTEMI). Prior efficacy and safety evidence are mainly from clinical trials. Economic data are insufficient. This study examined the differences in utilization, effectiveness, safety, and costs in treating ACS between enoxaparin and UFH monotherapy using real-world data. METHODS: Using data from 859 US hospitals, inpatients ≥ 18 years of age with a diagnosis of an initial episode of ACS between 2010 and 2016 were identified. Outcomes included 30-day risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), recurrent angina, in-hospital mortality, composite ischemic complication (having MI/recurrent angina/death), major bleeding, and costs. Multivariable regression was used to compare outcomes between enoxaparin and UFH monotherapy. RESULTS: Among 1,048,053 eligible patients (UA: 219,259; NSTEMI: 582,134; STEMI: 246,660), the prevalence of enoxaparin monotherapy was 12.0%, 13.9%, and 5.1%, and the prevalence of UFH monotherapy was 45.1%, 43.1% and 59.8%, for UA, NSTEMI, and STEMI patients, respectively. Enoxaparin was associated with a lower risk of ischemic complications and death among NSTEMI, but not in UA or STEMI patients, and with a lower risk of major bleeding in all patients. Cost savings per patient during index admission and 30-day follow-up for enoxaparin over UFH was $2972 for UA, $2475 for NSTEMI, and $3050 for STEMI. CONCLUSIONS: Enoxaparin was associated with a lower risk of ischemic complications (including death), lower costs, and better safety than UFH among NSTEMI patients. Improving upstream selection of anticoagulants in appropriate populations may help optimize clinical outcomes and costs.

A Review of Two Heparin Prophylaxes for Trauma.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis has a significant impact on mortality and morbidity in trauma patients. This article reviews 9 published studies that investigate and compare low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for prophylaxis of VTE in the trauma patient population in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost. There is no difference between LDUH and LMWH for VTE prophylaxis. Four databases were utilized to find 9 relevant studies whose patient population was adult trauma patients: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE and Scopus. Two studies found statistically significant differences in deep venous thrombosis, and 3 found differences in pulmonary embolism between LDUH and LMWH. Only 1 study demonstrated a significant difference in bleeding complications between the 2 treatment regimens. Two statedthat using LDUH resulted in remarkable cost savings versus LMWH. The 9 studies all came to different conclusions. Contrary findings may have been affected by population variety, different dosing regimens, various applications of mechanical VTE prophylaxis, and/or different VTE-screening tools. All of the studies had major variances leading to conflicting results, which made this review unable to draw concrete conclusions. Limitations of each study, population variety, and disparity of dosing regimens made it difficult for this review to make recommendations for practice.

Assessment of the adherence to and costs of the prophylaxis protocol for venous thromboembolism.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate adherence to the therapeutic prophylaxis protocol for venous thromboembolism (VTE) as well as the costs of this practice. METHODS: A descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted at a State General Hospital in Brazil through reports of drug dispensions, prescriptions and risk stratification of patients. Adherence to the VTE prophylaxis protocol was monitored. The tests for VTE diagnosis measured the adherence to therapeutic prophylaxis treatment, and the purchase prices of the drugs went into the calculation of drug therapy costs. The level of adherence to prescriptions for VTE prophylaxis in the hospital was classified as "adherence", "non-adherence" and "justified non-adherence" when compared with the protocol. RESULTS: Protocol adherence was observed for 50 (30.9%) patients, and non-adherence was observed for 63 (38.9%) patients, generating an additional cost of $180.40/month. Justified non-adherence in 49 (30.2%) patients generated $514.71/month in savings due to a reduction in the number of daily administrations of unfractionated heparin while still providing an effective method for preventing VTE. Twenty-six patients stratified as having medium to high risk of VTE who did not receive prophylaxis were identified, generating $154.41 in savings. However, these data should be evaluated with caution since the risks and outcomes associated with not preventing VTE outweigh the economy achieved from not prescribing a drug when a patient needs it. The only case of VTE identified during the study period was related to justified non-adherence to the protocol. CONCLUSION: The protocol is based on scientific evidence that describes an effective therapy to prevent VTE. However, the protocol should be updated because the justifications for non-adherence are based on scientific evidence, and this justified non-adherence generates savings and yields effective disease prevention.

The cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of the use of enoxaparin compared with heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medical inpatients in Iran.

BACKGROUND: Moderate to high risk medical inpatients are at increased risk of Venous Thromboembolism (VTE). The present study aims to investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of using Enoxaparin compared to Heparin in VTE prophylaxis in medical inpatients, from Iranian payer's perspective. METHODS: Decision tree modeling technique was used to evaluate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the compared interventions. The main considered outcomes were Life Years Gained (LYG) for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) for Cost-Utility Analysis (CUA). Costs and consequences of the interventions were evaluated for a three-month period and reported as Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios (ICERs). One-way and Probabilistic Sensitivity Analysis (PSA) were conducted to evaluate the robustness of the model due to uncertainty in the input data. RESULTS: In base case scenario (i.e. public tariff), incremental cost was $10.32, and incremental QALY and incremental LYG were 0.0001 and 0.0002 per patients respectively. Base case ICERs were 60,376 USD/QALY and 71,077 USD/LYG per patient. The results of the sensitivity analysis showed the robustness of the model. CONCLUSION: As the estimated ICER per QALY is more than three times the reported Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita by world bank for Iran in 2017 ($5415), the use of Enoxaparin for VTE prophylaxis in medical in patients doesn't seem to be a cost-effective intervention compared to the use of Heparin in Iran.

Tissue plasminogen activator vs heparin for locking central venous catheters between apheresis procedures.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheters (CVCs) for apheresis procedures require regular locking/flushes to maintain adequate flow rates. Literature comparing locking solutions for apheresis, where the time interval between procedures can be longer than for hemodialysis (many days to weeks), is lacking. In this study, catheter malfunction rates using recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) vs heparin for locking CVC between apheresis procedures were compared. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 93 extracorporeal photopheresis procedures in 10 patients was performed at our institution. About 1000 U/mL heparin or 2 mg rt-PA was used as the locking solution. Heparin locks were changed at least once per week and rt-PA locks could be left in place for up to 4 weeks. Following these locks, inadequate blood flow noted on accessing CVC and/or during the procedure was scored on as: no issues, some issues, or significant issues. Binary logistic regression was used to evaluate for potential statistical difference in outcomes. Cost analysis was also performed. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was noted in outcomes between heparin and rt-PA lock (P value = 0.15). Total cost of heparin lock administration ($91-$362.50) was found to be more than rt-PA lock ($76) when more than one flush was needed between procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For apheresis use, rt-PA and heparin CVC locks seem to have similar outcomes in preventing CVC malfunction. The convenience of not needing any flushes between procedures and overall cost of administering fewer locks favors rt-PA use when the interval between procedures is >7 days.

Assessment of the adherence to and costs of the prophylaxis protocol for venous thromboembolism

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate adherence to the therapeutic prophylaxis protocol for venous thromboembolism (VTE) as well as the costs of this practice. METHODS: A descriptive and cross-sectional study was conducted at a State General Hospital in Brazil through reports of drug dispensions, prescriptions and risk stratification of patients. Adherence to the VTE prophylaxis protocol was monitored. The tests for VTE diagnosis measured the adherence to therapeutic prophylaxis treatment, and the purchase prices of the drugs went into the calculation of drug therapy costs. The level of adherence to prescriptions for VTE prophylaxis in the hospital was classified as "adherence", "non-adherence" and "justified non-adherence" when compared with the protocol. RESULTS: Protocol adherence was observed for 50 (30.9%) patients, and non-adherence was observed for 63 (38.9%) patients, generating an additional cost of $180.40/month. Justified non-adherence in 49 (30.2%) patients generated $514.71/month in savings due to a reduction in the number of daily administrations of unfractionated heparin while still providing an effective method for preventing VTE. Twenty-six patients stratified as having medium to high risk of VTE who did not receive prophylaxis were identified, generating $154.41 in savings. However, these data should be evaluated with caution since the risks and outcomes associated with not preventing VTE outweigh the economy achieved from not prescribing a drug when a patient needs it. The only case of VTE identified during the study period was related to justified non-adherence to the protocol. CONCLUSION: The protocol is based on scientific evidence that describes an effective therapy to prevent VTE. However, the protocol should be updated because the justifications for non-adherence are based on scientific evidence, and this justified non-adherence generates savings and yields effective disease prevention.

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Heparin Coated Versus Standard Graft for Bypass Surgery in Peripheral Artery Disease Alongside a Randomised Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Heparin coating has recently been shown to reduce the risk of graft failure in arterial revascularisation, at least transiently. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of heparin coated versus standard polytetrafluoroethylene grafts for bypass surgery in peripheral artery disease from a long-term healthcare system perspective. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness evaluation was conducted alongside the Danish part of the Scandinavian Propaten trial in which 431 patients planned for femoro-femoral or femoro-popliteal bypass surgery were randomised to either type of graft and followed for 5 years. Based on the intention to treat principle, the differences in healthcare costs (general practice, prescription medication, hospital admission, rehabilitation, and long-term care in 2015 Euros), life years (LYs), and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were analysed as arithmetic means with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were used to illustrate the probability of cost-effectiveness for a range of threshold values of willingness to pay (WTP). RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between the randomisation groups were observed for costs or gains of LYs or QALYs. The average cost per QALY was estimated at €10,792. For a WTP threshold of €40,000 per QALY, the overall probability of cost-effectiveness was estimated at 62%, but owing to cost savings in patients with critical ischaemia (cost per QALY <€0), it increased to 89% for this subgroup. CONCLUSION: Until further evidence, heparin coated grafts appear overall, to be cost-effective over standard grafts, but important heterogeneity between claudication and critical ischaemia should be noted. While the optimal choice for claudication remains uncertain, heparin coated grafts should be used for critical ischaemia.

Taurolidine-based catheter lock regimen significantly reduces overall costs, infection, and dysfunction rates of tunneled hemodialysis catheters.

Catheter-related infections and dysfunction are the main catheter complications causing morbidity and mortality in hemodialysis patients. However, there are no consistent data for the choice of catheter lock solutions for tunneled hemodialysis lines. In this prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, two lock regimens using three commercial catheter lock solutions were compared in 106 hemodialysis patients with a newly inserted tunneled central catheter. In the taurolidine group, TauroLock™-Hep500 was used twice per week and TauroLock™-U25,000 once a week. In the citrate group, a four percent citrate solution was used after each dialysis. Both groups were compared regarding catheter-related infections, catheter dysfunction, and costs. Over a period of 15,690 catheter days, six catheter-related infections occurred in six of 52 patients in the taurolidine group, but 18 occurred in 13 of 54 patients in the citrate group, corresponding to 0.67 and 2.7 episodes of catheter-related infections per 1000 catheter days, respectively (Incidence Rate Ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval, 0.09 to 0.63). Catheter dysfunction rates were significantly lower in the taurolidine group (18.7 vs. 44.3/1000 catheter days) and alteplase rescue significantly more frequent in the citrate group (9.8 vs. 3.8/1000 catheter days). These differences provided significant catheter-related cost savings of 43% in the taurolidine group vs. citrate group when overall expenses per patient and year were compared. Thus, use of taurolidine-based catheter lock solutions containing heparin and urokinase significantly reduced complications related to tunneled hemodialysis catheters when compared to four percent citrate solution and was overall more cost-efficient.

[Comparison of citrate 4% and heparin as tunneled-catheters-locking solution in chronic hemodialysis]. / Comparaison des verrous de cathéters tunnellisés par citrate 4 % et héparine en hémodialyse chronique.

INTRODUCTION: Citrate 4% is an alternative to heparin as catheter-locking solution in chronic hemodialysis patients. We compared catheter dysfunction episodes, dialysis adequacy, plasminogen-tissular activators use and costs according to catheter-locking solution in our centre. METHODS: Prospective, monocentric, cohort study (NephroCare Tassin-Charcot) on 49 prevalent patients in chronic hemodialysis. Two main groups were formed according to the prescription of catheter-locking solution at the beginning of the study (03/02/2016) and followed until 05/10/2016: heparin (n=26) and citrate (n=22). RESULTS: The number of diabetic patients was higher in the citrate group (12/22) than in the heparin one (5/26; P=0.025). The 2 groups were comparable for the other studied variables. We didn't observe any difference in terms of catheter-dysfunction (4.23 versus 4.14% in heparin and citrate groups, respectively; P=1.0) and dialysis adequacy. The prescription of citrate was associated with lower TPA uses (1/604 versus 14/946; P=0.022) and lower costs (1.42 € for one session versus 2.94 €). CONCLUSION: Administration of citrate 4% as a catheter-locking solution is not inferior to heparin in terms of catheter-dysfunction episodes, is associated with similar dialysis adequacy results, lower plasminogen-tissular activators uses and reduced costs in chronic prevalent hemodialysed patients.

Overall Effectiveness of Rivaroxaban in Patients with Pulmonary Embolism.

PURPOSE: Due to limited evidence on the impact of rivaroxaban in clinical practice, we compared the effectiveness of rivaroxaban versus standard of care (SOC) among patients in the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: Adult patients with continuous enrollment in a health plan with medical and pharmacy benefits for ≥12 months before and ≥3 months after an inpatient diagnosis of pulmonary embolism (PE) between October 1, 2011, and June 30, 2015, and a prescription claim for an anticoagulant during the index hospitalization, were included. SOC drugs were low-molecular-weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, and warfarin. Propensity score matching was used in comparing PE-related outcomes (recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and death), hospital-acquired complications (HACs), health care resource utilization, and costs among patients receiving SOC versus rivaroxaban. We defined net clinical benefit as 1 minus the combined rate of PE-related outcomes and HACs. FINDINGS: Among 6746 patients with PE, 208 received rivaroxaban, 4641 received SOC and 1897 received other anticoagulants. Most (95%) were male; 22% were black. After 1:3 propensity score matching, there were 203 rivaroxaban and 609 SOC patients. During the 90-day follow-up, rivaroxaban users had similar rates of PE-related outcomes, but fewer had experienced at least 1 HAC (10.3% vs 15.9%; P = 0.0506), resulting in better net clinical benefit (82.8% vs 71.1%; P = 0.001). Rivaroxaban users had fewer outpatient visits per patient (17.0 vs 19.9; P = 0.0005), a similar rehospitalization rate (0.2 vs 0.3; P = 0.084), lesser inpatient costs (US $3501 vs $6189; P < 0.0001), lesser inpatient costs and lesser total costs ($10,545 vs $14,192; P = 0.0002). When the sample was limited to patients with low-risk PE, we found similar patterns. IMPLICATIONS: Patients with PE prescribed rivaroxaban had similar PE-related outcomes, but fewer HACs and lesser total costs, than did patients on SOC.

[Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type II (HIT II) : A medical-economic view]. / Die heparininduzierte Thrombozytopenie (HIT II) : Eine medizinökonomische Betrachtung.

BACKGROUND: In the context of inpatient and increasingly ambulatory thrombosis prophylaxis, heparins have been recognised as standard therapy for decades. In addition to the therapeutic benefit, therapy with heparins also entails the risk of undesirable side effects, such as bleeding and thrombocytopenia. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT II) is deemed a serious side effect. AIM: In the following work, HIT II is subjected to a medico-economic consideration (treatment, pharmaceuticals, subsequent costs due to possible complications) and, with regard to a possible HIT II prophylaxis, aspects of increasingly respected patient safety are also considered. METHODS: In the context of a literature search the active ingredients argatroban and danaparoid, which are approved for HIT II treatment, were evaluated. RESULTS: HIT II - especially in combination with thromboembolic complications - represents a medical-economic burden for the hospital. Although this is only an orientation guide, it shows that HIT II syndrome is not adequately cost-covered by the G­DRG system. An early thrombosis prophylaxis with argatroban/danaparoid for HIT II risk patients should therefore be taken into account for medical-related as well as patient safety-relevant aspects. According to experience, the pharmaceutical supply for these medically needed products (anticoagulants) should be ensured for reasons of patient safety. CONCLUSION: The risk of an immunological response to heparin therapy is known. Within the context of increased patient safety, thrombosis prophylaxis should be issued with a risk-adjusted prophylaxis.

Treatment of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia before and after the implementation of a hemostatic and antithrombotic stewardship program.

In October 2013, we implemented a hemostatic and antithrombotic (HAT) stewardship program with the primary focus of ensuring appropriate use of intravenous direct thrombin inhibitors (DTI) in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). We sought to compare the duration and cost of DTI therapy for the management of HIT before and after implementation of the HAT stewardship program. Following institutional review board approval, we conducted a single center, retrospective chart review of all patients with a suspected diagnosis of HIT as assessed by an anti-heparin-PF4 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay 6 months pre-HAT and post-HAT implementation. Patients were excluded if they were initiated on a DTI at an outside hospital, had a prior episode of HIT, or received mechanical circulatory support. Clinical characteristics, including demographics, comorbidities, medications, laboratory values, clinical and safety outcomes, length of stay, and mortality, were collected. A total of 592 patients were included; 333 patients were evaluated pre-HAT, while 259 patients were evaluated post-HAT. The mean duration of DTI treatment was significantly decreased in the post-HAT cohort (6.64 vs 5.17 days, p = 0.01), primarily driven by decreased duration of use for patients with suspected HIT (4.07 vs 2.86 days, p = 0.01). The HAT Stewardship program demonstrated a total decrease in annual costs associated with the diagnosis and management of HIT of $248,500. Our results indicate that the implementation of the HAT stewardship program had a significant impact on reducing the duration and costs of DTI therapy and the costs of laboratory evaluations in the management of HIT at our institution.

Rivaroxaban versus Heparin Bridging to Warfarin Therapy: Impact on Hospital Length of Stay and Treatment Costs for Low-Risk Patients with Pulmonary Embolism.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare hospital length of stay (LOS) and hospital treatment costs in low-risk patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) anticoagulated with rivaroxaban or heparin bridging to warfarin therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective review of electronic health records and hospital billing records. SETTING: Large, teaching hospital in the northeastern United States. PATIENTS: One hundred ninety adults with objectively confirmed acute PE presenting to the emergency department between November 1, 2012, and May, 12, 2015, who were classified as low risk of early mortality and received anticoagulation with either rivaroxaban or heparin (i.e., unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin) bridging to warfarin therapy were included in the analysis. Patients were identified as low risk by at least one of the following prediction rules: simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (sPESI; 115 patients), Hestia criteria (87 patients), or In-hospital Mortality for Pulmonary Embolism using Claims Data (IMPACT; 108 patients); these were not mutually exclusive, as patients could be classified as low risk by more than one risk stratification tool. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We divided low-risk patients identified by each prediction rule into two cohorts: those receiving rivaroxaban (allowing ≤ 2 days of prior heparin use) or heparin bridging to warfarin therapy. The primary end points for this study were LOS (number of days from the patient's arrival at our institution until discharge) and total hospital treatment costs (our institution's actual costs to provide treatment) for the index PE hospital encounter. Using multivariable generalized linear model regression (gamma-distributed error and log-link), we estimated differences in LOS and hospital costs (in 2015 U.S. dollars) between the two cohorts after covariate adjustment. Rivaroxaban was associated with significantly shorter adjusted LOS (range -2.1 to -4.3 days) and significantly lower index hospital costs (range -$3835 to -$7094) versus heparin bridging to warfarin, regardless of the prediction rule used to identify low-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Among low-risk PE patients identified by using sPESI, Hestia or IMPACT, rivaroxaban was associated with significantly shorter LOS and lower hospital treatment costs versus heparin bridging to warfarin.

Assessing the clinical and cost impact of on-demand immunoassay testing for the diagnosis of heparin induced thrombocytopenia.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic work-up for heparin induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) can take several days. Consequently patients may be speculatively switched onto replacement anticoagulant therapy before a diagnosis is confirmed. On-demand immunoassay diagnostic testing enables timely treatment decisions, based on test results. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the clinical and cost impact of the use of on-demand versus batched diagnostic tests for HIT. METHODS: Literature was reviewed to identify test performance, clinical and cost data. Semi-structured interviews (n=4) and a survey (n=90) provided insights into current practice and challenges. Flow diagram models were developed to estimate the potential impact of on-demand testing. RESULTS: Modelling estimated more HIT-related outcomes for patients maintained on heparin whilst awaiting test results and patients switched onto replacement anticoagulant therapy awaiting test results, compared with on-demand testing and treatment based on the results. The budget impact model estimated that on-demand testing reduced replacement anticoagulant therapy costs from $39,616 to $12,799 per patient. There are limitations to the data available to inform modelling and the estimates should be treated with caution. CONCLUSIONS: Using on-demand testing may drive positive effects on clinical and cost outcomes.