Background The diagnosis of recurrent ipsilateral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with compression ultrasonography (CUS) may be hindered by residual intravascular obstruction after previous DVT. A... Show moreBackground The diagnosis of recurrent ipsilateral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) with compression ultrasonography (CUS) may be hindered by residual intravascular obstruction after previous DVT. A reference CUS, an additional ultrasound performed at anticoagulant discontinuation, may improve the diagnostic work-up of suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT by providing baseline images for future comparison.Objectives To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of routinely performing reference CUS in DVT patients.Methods Patient-level data (n 1/4 96) from a prospective management study (Theia study; NCT02262052) and claims data were used in a decision analytic model to compare 12 scenarios for diagnostic management of suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT. Estimated health care costs and mortality due to misdiagnosis, recurrent venous thromboembolism, and bleeding during the first year of follow-up after presentation with suspected recurrence were compared.Results All six scenarios including reference CUS had higher estimated 1-year costs (1,763-1,913) than the six without reference CUS (1,192-1,474). Costs were higher because reference CUS results often remained unused, as 20% of patients (according to claims data) would return with suspected recurrent DVT. Estimated mortality was comparable in scenarios with (14.8-17.9 per 10,000 patients) and without reference CUS (14.0-18.5 per 10,000). None of the four potentially most desirable scenarios included reference CUS. Conclusion One-year health care costs of diagnostic strategies for suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT including reference CUS are higher compared to strategies without reference CUS, without mortality benefit. These results can inform policy-makers regarding use of health care resources during follow-up after DVT. From a cost-effectiveness perspective, the findings do not support the routine application of reference CUS. Show less
Hendriks, S.V.; Hout, W.B. van den; Bemmel, T. van; Bistervels, I.M.; Eijsvogel, M.; Faber, L.M.; ... ; YEARS Investigators 2023
Background Venous thromboembolism constitutes substantial health care costs amounting to approximately 60 million euros per year in the Netherlands. Compared with initial hospitalization, home... Show moreBackground Venous thromboembolism constitutes substantial health care costs amounting to approximately 60 million euros per year in the Netherlands. Compared with initial hospitalization, home treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with a cost reduction. An accurate estimation of cost savings per patient treated at home is currently lacking.Aim The aim of this study was to compare health care utilization and costs during the first 3 months after a PE diagnosis in patients who are treated at home versus those who are initially hospitalized.Methods Patient-level data of the YEARS cohort study, including 383 normotensive patients diagnosed with PE, were used to estimate the proportion of patients treated at home, mean hospitalization duration in those who were hospitalized, and rates of PE-related readmissions and complications. To correct for baseline differences within the two groups, regression analyses was performed. The primary outcome was the average total health care costs during a 3-month follow-up period for patients initially treated at home or in hospital.Results Mean hospitalization duration for the initial treatment was 0.69 days for those treated initially at home (n = 181) and 4.3 days for those initially treated in hospital (n = 202). Total average costs per hospitalized patient were €3,209 and €1,512 per patient treated at home. The adjusted mean difference was €1,483 (95% confidence interval: €1,181–1,784).Conclusion Home treatment of hemodynamically stable patients with acute PE was associated with an estimated net cost reduction of €1,483 per patient. This difference underlines the advantage of triage-based home treatment of these patients. Show less
Hendriks, S.V.; Hout, W.B. van den; Bemmel, T. van; Bistervels, I.M.; Eijsvogel, M.; Faber, L.M.; ... ; YEARS Investigators 2021
Background Venous thromboembolism constitutes substantial health care costs amounting to approximately 60 million euros per year in the Netherlands. Compared with initial hospitalization, home... Show moreBackground Venous thromboembolism constitutes substantial health care costs amounting to approximately 60 million euros per year in the Netherlands. Compared with initial hospitalization, home treatment of pulmonary embolism (PE) is associated with a cost reduction. An accurate estimation of cost savings per patient treated at home is currently lacking.Aim The aim of this study was to compare health care utilization and costs during the first 3 months after a PE diagnosis in patients who are treated at home versus those who are initially hospitalized.Methods Patient-level data of the YEARS cohort study, including 383 normotensive patients diagnosed with PE, were used to estimate the proportion of patients treated at home, mean hospitalization duration in those who were hospitalized, and rates of PE-related readmissions and complications. To correct for baseline differences within the two groups, regression analyses was performed. The primary outcome was the average total health care costs during a 3-month follow-up period for patients initially treated at home or in hospital.Results Mean hospitalization duration for the initial treatment was 0.69 days for those treated initially at home ( n =181) and 4.3 days for those initially treated in hospital ( n =202). Total average costs per hospitalized patient were Euro3,209 and Euro1,512 per patient treated at home. The adjusted mean difference was Euro1,483 (95% confidence interval: Euro1,181-1,784).Conclusion Home treatment of hemodynamically stable patients with acute PE was associated with an estimated net cost reduction of Euro1,483 per patient. This difference underlines the advantage of triage-based home treatment of these patients. Show less
Dam, L.F. van; Hout, W.B. van den; Gautam, G.; Dronkers, C.E.A.; Ghanima, W.; Gleditsch, J.; ... ; Klok, F.A. 2021
The diagnostic workup of recurrent ipsilateral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) using compression ultrasonography (CUS) can be complicated by persistent intravascular abnormalities after a previous DVT.... Show moreThe diagnostic workup of recurrent ipsilateral deep vein thrombosis (DVT) using compression ultrasonography (CUS) can be complicated by persistent intravascular abnormalities after a previous DVT. We showed that magnetic resonance direct thrombus imaging (MRDTI) can exclude recurrent ipsilateral DVT. However, it is unknown whether the application of MRDTI in daily clinical practice is cost effective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of MRDTI-based diagnosis for suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT during first year of treatment and follow-up in the Dutch health care setting. Patientlevel data of the Theia study (NCT02262052) were analyzed in 10 diagnostic scenarios, including a clinical decision rule and D-dimer test and imaging with CUS and/or MRDTI. The total costs of diagnostic tests and treatment during 1-year follow-up, including costs of false-positive and false-negative diagnoses, were compared and related to the associated mortality. The 1-year health care costs with MRDTI (range, (sic)1219-1296) were generally lower than strategies without MRDTI (range, (sic)1278-1529). This was because of superior specificity, despite higher initial diagnostic costs. Diagnostic strategies including CUS alone and CUS followed by MRDTI in case of an inconclusive CUS were potential optimal cost-effective strategies, with estimated average costs of (sic)1529 and (sic)1263 per patient and predicted mortality of 1 per 737 patients and 1 per 609 patients, respectively. Our model shows that diagnostic strategies with MRDTI for suspected recurrent ipsilateral DVT have generally lower 1-year health care costs than strategies without MRDTI. Therefore, compared with CUS alone, applying MRDTI did not increase health care costs. Show less
Pol, L.M. van der; Dronkers, C.E.A.; Hulle, T. van der; Exter, P.L. den; Tromeur, C.; Heringhaus, C.; ... ; Klok, F.A. 2018
