AIM/ BACKGROUND: Treatment of DVT with LMWHs has been shown recently to be as effective as UFH with suggested lower costs. This study was conducted to determine and compare the cost of in-patient hospital treatment versus outpatient hospital treatment of patients with DVT. METHOD: All adult patients with acute proximal DVT referred to the Emergency Department of King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between August 2009 and August 2010 were invited to the study. An economic analysis was performed to compare the cost impact of outpatients versus hospital treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included in the study, 31 were followed in the outpatient setting and 30 as the control group (inpatients). There were no significant differences in the outcome between the outpatient and inpatient group; three patients (9.7%) in the outpatient group and four patients (13.3%) in the inpatient group had recurrent DVT. Mean nursing cost was $55 for the outpatient group and $215 for the inpatient group, mean laboratory monitoring cost was $638 for outpatient group and $1511 for the inpatient group. Hospital stay and doctor's fees amounted to a mean of $1000 for outpatient treatment and $2387 for inpatient treatment, p < 0.0001. The mean outpatient cost was significantly lower than the inpatient cost ($1750 vs. $4338, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Outpatient treatment of patients with DVT using LMWHs is cost-effective with no significant differences in the outcome of patients. OPD treatment of DVT is feasible in Saudi Arabia provided there is enough logistic support from thrombosis clinics and those involved in DVT care.
AIM/ BACKGROUND: Treatment of DVT with LMWHs has been shown recently to be as effective as UFH with suggested lower costs. This study was conducted to determine and compare the cost of in-patient hospital treatment versus outpatient hospital treatment of patients with DVT. METHOD: All adult patients with acute proximal DVT referred to the Emergency Department of King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia between August 2009 and August 2010 were invited to the study. An economic analysis was performed to compare the cost impact of outpatients versus hospital treatment. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included in the study, 31 were followed in the outpatient setting and 30 as the control group (inpatients). There were no significant differences in the outcome between the outpatient and inpatient group; three patients (9.7%) in the outpatient group and four patients (13.3%) in the inpatient group had recurrent DVT. Mean nursing cost was $55 for the outpatient group and $215 for the inpatient group, mean laboratory monitoring cost was $638 for outpatient group and $1511 for the inpatient group. Hospital stay and doctor's fees amounted to a mean of $1000 for outpatient treatment and $2387 for inpatient treatment, p < 0.0001. The mean outpatient cost was significantly lower than the inpatient cost ($1750 vs. $4338, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION:Outpatient treatment of patients with DVT using LMWHs is cost-effective with no significant differences in the outcome of patients. OPD treatment of DVT is feasible in Saudi Arabia provided there is enough logistic support from thrombosis clinics and those involved in DVT care.
Authors: G Merli; T E Spiro; C G Olsson; U Abildgaard; B L Davidson; A Eldor; D Elias; A Grigg; D Musset; G M Rodgers; A A Trowbridge; R D Yusen; K Zawilska Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-02-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Fahad M Al-Hameed; Hasan M Al-Dorzi; Abdulkarim M Al-Momen; Farjah H Algahtani; Hazzaa A Al-Zahrani; Khalid A Al-Saleh; Mohammed A Al-Sheef; Tarek M Owaidah; Waleed Alhazzani; Ignacio Neumann; Wojtek Wiercioch; Jan Brozek; Holger Schunemann; Elie A Akl Journal: Saudi Med J Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 1.484