scholarly journals Hospital Admissions, Costs, and 30-Day Readmissions Among Newly Diagnosed Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Patients Treated with Dabigatran Etexilate or Warfarin

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (11) ◽  
pp. 1039-1053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eileen Fonseca ◽  
Stephen D. Sander ◽  
Gregory P. Hess ◽  
Sabyasachi Ghosh
Author(s):  
Eileen Fonseca ◽  
David R Walker ◽  
Gregory P Hess

Background: Warfarin and dabigatran etexilate (DE) are oral anticoagulants (OAC) used to reduce the risk of stroke among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, DE does not require titration and INR monitoring. This study examined whether hospital length of stay (LOS) and total hospital costs differed between the two therapies among treatment-naive, newly-diagnosed AF patients. Methods: LOS and total hospital costs were evaluated for hospitalizations with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) between 1/1/2011-3/31/2012, with DE or warfarin administered during hospitalization, and excluding hospitalizations of patients with valvular AF, previously diagnosed with AF, or previously treated with OAC. Hospitalizations were identified from a Charge Detail Masters database containing 397 qualified hospitals. Samples were propensity score matched using nearest neighbor within a caliper of 0.20 standard deviations of the logit, without replacement and a 2:1 match. Differences in LOS and hospital cost were then estimated using generalized linear models, fitted by generalized estimating equations (clustered by hospital) to account for possible correlation between observations. The hospitalization’s charged amount was multiplied by the hospital’s inpatient cost-to-charge ratio to estimate the total hospital cost. Covariates estimating the propensity score, LOS, and costs included patient age, payer type, CHADS 2 and HAS-BLED scores, use of bridging agents, comorbid conditions, and hospital attributes. As a sensitivity analysis, LOS and costs were estimated with the same parameters and covariates among the raw, unbalanced sample. Results: Matched samples included 1,292 warfarin and 646 DE hospitalizations of treatment-naive, newly diagnosed patients out of 4,619 and 715 hospitalizations, respectively. No covariates used in matching had standardized mean differences > 10% after matching. Two comorbidities (thromboembolism, coronary artery disease) had statistically different distributions after matching (DE: 3% vs. warfarin: 8%, p<0.001 and DE: 40% vs. warfarin: 45%, p=0.048); these were included as model covariates. Among the sample, DE had an estimated 0.7 days shorter stay compared to warfarin (DE: 4.8 days vs. warfarin: 5.5 days, p<0.01) and a $2,031 lower estimated total cost (DE: $14,794 vs warfarin: $16,826, p=0.007). Sensitivity analysis confirmed a shorter DE LOS (DE: 5.5 days vs. warfarin: 6.6 days, delta=1.1 days, p<0.01) and a lower DE hospital cost (DE: $18,362 vs. warfarin: $22,602, delta=$4,240, p<0.01). Conclusions: Among hospitalizations of treatment-naive patients newly diagnosed with nonvalvular AF, the hospitalizations during which DE was administered had a shorter LOS and at least a 12% lower total hospital cost compared to hospitalizations where warfarin was administered.


Author(s):  
Eileen Fonseca ◽  
David R Walker ◽  
Jerrold Hill ◽  
Gregory P Hess

Background: Warfarin and dabigatran etexilate (DE) are oral anticoagulants used to reduce the risk of stroke among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This study examined whether hospital length of stay (LOS) differed for the two therapies. Methods: LOS was evaluated for patients hospitalized with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (AF) between 1/1-3/31/2011, with DE or warfarin administered during hospitalization, and excluding patients with a valvular procedure. Patients were identified from a hospital Charge Detail Masters database, consisting of 184 hospitals. Differences in LOS by therapy were estimated using propensity score-matched samples selected by nearest neighbor matching within a caliper of 0.20 standard deviations of the logit, without replacement and a 2:1 match. Covariates used to estimate the propensity score included age, gender, CHADS 2 score, comorbid conditions and hospital attributes. LOS was also analyzed in patient subgroups identified by use of specific bridging agents (low-molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, combination of the heparins, or no bridging agent) and a subset categorized as newly diagnosed NVAF. Results: Matched samples included 2,372 warfarin and 1,186 DE patients selected from 19,725 warfarin and 1,190 DE patients. Covariates used for the propensity score were not significantly different in the matched samples. LOS was 1.06 days shorter for DE compared to warfarin (DE: 6.16 days vs. warfarin: 7.22 days, p<0.01). In the 4 subgroups identified by choice of bridging agent, LOS was significantly shorter for DE in 3 (0.8 to 1.4 days, p<0.011), but not the fourth (0.9 day, p=0.3). In the subset of newly diagnosed NVAF, LOS was not significantly shorter for DE when AF was the primary discharge diagnosis (0.5 day, p=0.15), but was 2.47 days shorter for DE patients (p<0.01) when AF was a secondary discharge diagnosis. Limitations of the study were small sample sizes in some subgroups and potential of residual confounding. Conclusions: Among hospitalized patients with NVAF receiving an oral anticoagualant, patients receiving DE had a shorter length of stay compared to patients receiving warfarin.


Drugs ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah A. Blair ◽  
Gillian M. Keating

Author(s):  
Eileen Fonseca ◽  
David R Walker ◽  
Gregory P Hess

Background: Warfarin and dabigatran etexilate (DE) are oral anticoagulants (OAC) that reduce stroke risk among patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). However, DE does not require titration and INR monitoring. This study examined whether emergency department (ED) rate of admissions differed between the two therapies. Methods: Admission rate was evaluated for hospital encounters initiated in the ED, with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of AF between 1/1/2011-3/31/2012, with DE or warfarin administered during the encounter, and excluding encounters of valvular AF patients. Encounters were identified from a hospital Charge Detail Masters database containing 387 eligible hospitals. Samples were propensity score matched using nearest neighbor within a caliper of 0.20 standard deviations of the logit, without replacement, and a 2:1 match. Admission rates were estimated for encounters representing previously-treated patients and those representing treatment-naive patients using binominal generalized linear models, fitted by generalized estimating equations (clustered by hospital). Covariates estimating the propensity score and admission rate included age, payer type, use of bridging agents, AF as primary or secondary diagnosis, CHADS 2 and HAS-BLED scores, comorbid conditions, and hospital attributes. As a sensitivity analysis, admission rate was also estimated from the unmatched sample. Results: Matched samples included 2,688 warfarin and 1,344 DE ED encounters of previously-treated patients out of 15,053 and 1,367 ED encounters, respectively; and 2,578 warfarin and 1,289 DE ED encounters of OAC-treatment-naive patients out of 8,361 and 1,406 ED encounters, respectively. There were too few (n<5) matched encounters where the patient had prior OAC use but were new to the drug administered during the encounter, so these were excluded. No covariates used in matching had standardized mean differences > 10% after matching. Among the previously-treated sample, the estimated admission rate was 3.2% lower for DE compared to warfarin (88.3% vs. 91.5%, p=0.010) with sensitivity analysis confirming a lower admission rate for DE (91.1% vs. 93.8%, delta=2.7%, p=0.001). Among the treatment-naive sample, DE had a 1.2% lower admission rate compared to warfarin (95.2% vs. 96.3%, p=0.048). Sensitivity analysis confirmed a lower admission rate for DE (95.5% vs. 97.0%, delta=1.5%, p=0.001). Conclusions: While the vast majority of AF encounters initiated in the ED result in admission, encounters where patients were treated with DE as continuing or new therapy were less likely to be admitted compared to similar encounters where warfarin was administered.


2011 ◽  
Vol 2011 ◽  
pp. 1-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Àngels Font ◽  
Jerzy Krupinski ◽  
Adrià Arboix

Embolism of cardiac origin accounts for about 20% of ischemic strokes. Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is the most frequent cause of cardioembolic stroke. Approximately 1% of population is affected by atrial fibrillation, and its prevalence is growing with ageing in the modern world. Strokes due to cardioembolism are in general severe and prone to early recurrence and have a higher long-term risk of recurrence and mortality. Despite its enormous preventive potential, continuous oral anticoagulation is prescribed for less than half of patients with atrial fibrillation who have risk factors for cardioembolism and no contraindications for anticoagulation. Available evidence does not support routine immediate anticoagulation of acute cardioembolic stroke. Anticoagulation therapy's associated risk of hemorrhage and monitoring requirements have encouraged the investigation of alternative therapies for individuals with atrial fibrillation. New anticoagulants being tested for prevention of stroke are low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH), unfractionated heparin, factor Xa inhibitors, or direct thrombin inhibitors like dabigatran etexilate and rivaroxaban. The later exhibit stable pharmacokinetics obviating the need for coagulation monitoring or dose titration, and they lack clinically significant food or drug interaction. Moreover, they offer another potential that includes fixed dosing, oral administration, and rapid onset of action. There are several concerns regarding potential harm, including an increased risk for hepatotoxicity, clinically significant bleeding, and acute coronary events. Therefore, additional trials and postmarketing surveillance will be needed.


2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 567-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Zalesak ◽  
Kimberly Siu ◽  
Kevin Francis ◽  
Chen Yu ◽  
Hasmik Alvrtsyan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document