Variation in hospital resource use and cost among surgical procedures using topical absorbable hemostats.

BACKGROUND: Adjunctive hemostats are used to assist with the control of intraoperative bleeding. The most common types are flowables, gelatins, thrombins, and oxidized regenerated celluloses (ORCs). In the US, Surgicel(®) products are the only US Food and Drug Administration-approved ORCs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs associated with using ORCs compared to other adjunctive hemostats (OAHs are defined as flowables, gelatins, and topical thrombins) for surgical procedures in the US inpatient setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective, US-based cohort study was conducted using hospital inpatient discharges from the 2011-2012 calendar years in the Premier Healthcare Database. Patients with either an ORC or an OAH who underwent a cardiovascular procedure (valve surgery and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery), carotid endarterectomy, cholecystectomy, or hysterectomy were included. Propensity score matching was used to create comparable groups of ORC and OAH patients. Clinical, economic, and HRU outcomes were compared. RESULTS: The propensity score matching created balanced patient cohorts for cardiovascular procedure (22,718 patients), carotid endarterectomy (10,890 patients), cholecystectomy (6,090 patients), and hysterectomy (9,348 patients). In all procedures, hemostatic agent costs were 28%-56% lower for ORCs, and mean hemostat units per discharge were 16%-41% lower for ORCs compared to OAHs. Length of stay and total procedure costs for patients treated with ORCs were lower for carotid endarterectomy patients (0.3 days and US$700) and for cholecystectomy patients (1 day and US$3,350) (all P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Costs and HRU for patients treated with ORCs were lower than or similar to patients treated with OAHs. Proper selection of the appropriate hemostatic agents has the potential to influence clinical outcomes and treatment costs.

Healthcare utilization and costs associated with dabigatran compared to warfarin treatment in newly diagnosed patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

PURPOSE: Real-world healthcare resource utilization and costs were compared among patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) receiving either dabigatran or warfarin. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data from the United States Department of Defense (DOD) Military Health System. Patients with newly diagnosed AF initiated on dabigatran or warfarin were identified using ICD-9 diagnosis, procedure and drug codes. Patients were observed for 3 months prior to treatment initiation to ascertain a diagnosis of valvular heart disease and 12 months for exclusion of those with a history of anticoagulation therapy. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics between the two treatment cohorts. Medical and pharmacy utilization and costs were compared between the dabigatran and warfarin treatment groups for 3 and 12 months following treatment initiation. RESULTS: A total of 1102 patients with newly diagnosed NVAF initiated on dabigatran were matched with corresponding warfarin-treated patients. In the 12 months following initiation of anticoagulation, the mean medical costs for patients initiated on dabigatran were significantly lower than for patients initiated on warfarin (-$6299, p < 0.001), largely due to fewer hospitalizations (-0.162, p = 0.009). While pharmacy costs were higher ($4369, p < 0.001) for dabigatran, overall healthcare costs were significantly lower compared with patients on warfarin (12 months: -$1940, p < 0.001). Mean hospital length of stay between these two groups were similar (6.033 days for dabigatran vs 6.318 days for warfarin, p = 0.139). CONCLUSION: Despite higher pharmacy costs for NVAF patients initiated on dabigatran vs warfarin, this was more than offset by lower utilization of medical care resources.

Reduction in hospital costs and resource consumption associated with the use of advanced topical hemostats during inpatient procedures.

OBJECTIVE: The use of hemostatic agents has increased over time for all surgical procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the newer topical absorbable hemostat products Surgicel * Fibrillar † and Surgicel SNoW ‡ (Surgicel advanced products, abbreviated as SAPs) compared to the older product Surgicel Original (SO) with respect to healthcare resource use and costs in procedures where these hemostats are most commonly used. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Premier hospital database was used to identify adults who underwent brain/cerebral (BC), cardiovascular (CV: valve surgery and coronary artery bypass graft) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) between January 2011-December 2012. Among these patients, those treated with SAPs were compared to those treated with SO. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to create comparable groups to evaluate differences between SAPs and SO. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end-points for this study were length of stay (LOS), all-cause total cost, number of intensive care unit (ICU) days, ICU cost, transfusion costs and units, and SO/SAP product units per discharge. RESULTS: Matched PSM created patient cohorts for SO and SAPs were created for BC (n = 758 for both groups), CV (n = 3388 for both groups), and CEA (n = 2041 for both groups) procedures. Patients that received SAPs had a 14-16% lower mean LOS for each procedure compared to SO, as well as 12-18% lower total mean cost per discharge for each procedure (p < 0.02 for all results). Mean ICU costs for SAPs were also lower, with a reduction of 20% for BC and 19% for CV compared to SO (p < 0.01). However, for CEA, there was no statistically significant difference in ICU costs for SAPs compared to SO. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective hospital database analysis, the use of SAPs were associated with lower healthcare resource utilization and costs compared to SO.

Higher persistence in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with dabigatran versus warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation therapy is the primary tool in reducing stroke risk in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation but is underused. Patients nonpersistent with therapy contribute to this underuse. The objective of this study was to compare persistence rates in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients treated with warfarin versus dabigatran as their oral anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS: US Department of Defense administrative claims were used to identify patients receiving warfarin or dabigatran between October 28, 2010, and June 30, 2012. Patient records were examined for a minimum of 12 months before index date to restrict the analyses to those newly diagnosed with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and naive-to-treatment, identifying 1775 on warfarin and 3370 on dabigatran. Propensity score matching was used to identify 1745 matched pairs. Persistence was defined as time on therapy to discontinuation. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to depict persistence over time. Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the factors significantly associated with persistence. Using a 60-day permissible medication gap, the persistence rates were higher for dabigatran than for warfarin at both 6 months (72% versus 53%) and 1 year (63% versus 39%). Patients on dabigatran with a low-to-moderate risk of stroke (CHADS2<2) or with a higher bleed risk (HEMORR2HAGES>3) had a higher likelihood of nonpersistence (hazard ratios, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.60; P<0.001; and hazard ratios, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.47; P=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who initiated dabigatran treatment were more persistent than patients who began warfarin treatment. Within each cohort, patients with lower stroke risk were more likely to discontinue therapy.