Major bleeding rates after prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and cost implications

Abstract

LMWH results in fewer major bleeding episodes than UFH and PS but more than WARF. These events are costly and clinically important.

A decision-tree model to estimate the impact on cost-effectiveness of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guideline

“…With respect to the cost of major bleeding due to prophylaxis, we considered that 80% of cases would require surgical reintervention, while the remaining 20% would be treated medically 19. We then applied this proportion for weighting the cost of surgical management (Drg 443) and the cost of medical management (Drg 453) of a major bleeding episode.…”

Thromboprophylaxis in medically ill patients at risk for venous thromboembolism

“…It has been reported that LMWH results in fewer major bleeding episodes than UFH. 31 These events are costly and clinically important. This may, in part, explain and support our findings that the higher total drug cost in the LMWH patient group was offset by lower total costs.…”

Complications related to deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis in trauma: a systematic review of the literature

“…If a patient required surgery as a consequence of DVT prophylaxis, or had either an intracranial or retroperitoneal bleeding episode, it was also considered major [10]. In contrast, a recent meta-analysis of 20,523 patients [16] showed that LMWHs had fewer major bleeding events when compared to both UHs and pentasaccharide, with relative risks of 1.52 (95% CI, 1.04 - 2.23) and 1.52 (95% CI, 1.11 - 2.09) respectively. Only warfarin was observed to have fewer major bleeding events than LMWHs (relative risk = 0.59 (95% CI, 0.44 - 0.8)).…”