The Journal of trauma · 1997
Cost-effective prevention of pulmonary embolus in high-risk trauma patients.
Клиническое исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Brasel K J, Borgstrom D C, Weigelt J A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To define the cost-effectiveness of screening ultrasound (US) and prophylactic inferior vena cava filters (VCF), approaches aimed at reducing the incidence of pulmonary embolus (PE) in high-risk trauma patients.
DESIGN: Cost-effective analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a decision tree with three approaches for PE prevention: no intervention, US, and VCF. Probabilities in each subtree were taken from published data. Sensitivity analyses evaluated all assumptions, probabilities, and outcomes for effects on baseline conclusions.
RESULTS: US is more cost-effective than VCF, with a cost/PE prevented of $46,300 compared with $93,700. The strategies become equally cost-effective only when VCF are placed in the radiology suite and length of stay is > or = 2 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS: US is the most cost-effective approach for PE prevention in high-risk trauma patients. VCF should be reserved for patients with an anticipated length of stay > or = 2 weeks who can safely have a filter placed in the radiology suite.
DESIGN: Cost-effective analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a decision tree with three approaches for PE prevention: no intervention, US, and VCF. Probabilities in each subtree were taken from published data. Sensitivity analyses evaluated all assumptions, probabilities, and outcomes for effects on baseline conclusions.
RESULTS: US is more cost-effective than VCF, with a cost/PE prevented of $46,300 compared with $93,700. The strategies become equally cost-effective only when VCF are placed in the radiology suite and length of stay is > or = 2 weeks.
CONCLUSIONS: US is the most cost-effective approach for PE prevention in high-risk trauma patients. VCF should be reserved for patients with an anticipated length of stay > or = 2 weeks who can safely have a filter placed in the radiology suite.