Economic evaluation of the use of nadroparin calcium in the prophylaxis of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in surgical patients in Italy.

The objective of this study was to compare the costs, from the perspective of the payer, of using nadroparin calcium, a low-molecular-weight heparin, instead of unfractionated heparin in the prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery or major general surgery in Italy. The methods used were based on a published meta-analysis and a survey of clinical practice. We constructed a model of the prophylaxis and management of venous thromboembolism in Italy. Resource use associated with individual events was estimated on the basis of the clinical survey. Unit costs, not available from published sources, were taken from charges made by hospitals and from direct observation. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine whether the results were robust to changes in key variables. In the base case, compared with unfractionated heparin, prophylaxis with nadroparin calcium reduced the expected costs of managing thromboembolism by 267,226 Italian lire (L, 1994 values; $US1 = L1600 approx.) per patient undergoing orthopaedic surgery, and by L45,588 per patient undergoing major general surgery. Therefore, switching from unfractionated heparin to nadroparin calcium in these patients offers the possibility of significant cost savings to the Italian healthcare system.

Economic evaluation of the use of nadroparin in the treatment of deep-vein thrombosis in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost implications, from the payer's perspective, of the use of nadroparin instead of unfractionated heparin in the initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis. DESIGN: Cost-minimization study. SETTING: Switzerland. MATERIAL: Survey of clinical practice in six Swiss hospitals used to model three treatment regimens. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost of treatment ($ US) per patient. RESULTS: Treatment with nadroparin instead of unfractionated heparin would reduce costs by $153 per patient. Treatment with nadroparin instead of subcutaneous unfractionated heparin would reduce costs by $109 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of initial treatment of deep-vein thrombosis is considerably lower with nadroparin than with either of the alternative regimens. Nadroparin reduces costs through greater ease of administration and by reducing the amount of laboratory monitoring. Treatment with nadroparin might also allow patients to be discharged from the hospital more quickly than is possible with intravenous infusion of unfractionated heparin.

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of administering heparin subcutaneously or intravenously for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis.

The cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous heparin (20,000 iu, twice daily, prefilled syringes), a continuous intravenous infusion of 24,000 iu heparin in 24 h, and the intravenous infusion of 48,000 iu heparin as two consecutive 12-h infusions of 24,000 iu, were compared. The costs were calculated by timing and observing staff in three hospitals, and by noting the costs of what they used. Cannulation of a vein by a doctor took a mean of 4 min 16 s and cost 2.61 pounds. To prepare and administer the 24,000 iu of heparin in a 24-h infusion took a mean of 22 min 42 s/day and cost 9.52 pounds. If a 48,000 iu in 24-h infusion was used it took a mean of 36 min 3 s/day and cost 16.81 pounds. The use of heparin syringes, 20,000 iu subcutaneously twice daily, took 2 min 53 s/day and cost 4.80 pounds. A generic cost formula was calculated to allow for variation in staff or drug costs. The subcutaneous and intravenous routes were assumed to be equally effective on the basis of the medical literature. This study shows that subcutaneous heparin therapy is significantly more cost-effective than intravenous heparin therapy. The reduction in cost and liberation of nursing time mean that the subcutaneous route should be preferred.

Low-flow anaesthesia. Practice, cost implications and acceptability.

An 8-week survey was conducted to determine whether the introduction of low-flow anaesthesia (a fresh gas flow of 4 litres/minute or less) into routine use would be acceptable to members of a representative anaesthetic department and if the consequent reduction in use of volatile anaesthetics would result in financial savings. The hourly consumption of the volatile agents was measured during anaesthesia conducted using either conventional or low fresh gas flows. Anaesthetists' acceptance of low-flow anaesthesia was assessed using a questionnaire. Data were gathered on 286 patients undergoing inhalational anaesthesia for routine operative procedures. A 54.7% reduction in the consumption of isoflurane and a 55.9% reduction in that of enflurane was found. Of the 28 anaesthetists at the hospital, 21 would use low-flow anaesthesia routinely. The routine use of low-flow anaesthesia would therefore be acceptable and could result in annual savings of 26,870 pounds at Northwick Park Hospital.