An economic model for different anticoagulation strategies in continuous renal replacement therapy
Main finding · Incremental cost, base case (no bleeding impact on LOS or mortality)Result — go to the resultIncremental cost +$577Authors' conclusion
RCA is an economically attractive alternative to SHA, especially when bleeding leads to longer hospital stays.
Study context
- Population
- Critically ill patients on continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT)bleeding risk from RICH trial
- Comparison
- Regional citrate anticoagulation (RCA) vs systemic heparin anticoagulation (SHA)
- Outcome
- Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio between RCA and SHA
Methodological detailsdecision-analytic model, US healthcare payer perspective, sensitivity analyses
- Decision-analytic model
- US healthcare payer perspective
- Sensitivity analyses
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Incremental cost, base case (no bleeding impact on LOS or mortality)
Incremental cost
+$577
Further findings
| Outcome | Estimate |
|---|---|
| Scenario 1: bleeding impact on LOS | cost savings -$311 |
| Scenario 2: bleeding impact on mortality+0.076 incremental QALYs (+$8131/QALY) | incremental costs +$614 |
Scenario 3: bleeding impact on both length of stay (LOS) and mortality
- RCA appeared to be a dominant strategy over SHA
Sensitivity analyses
- Results robust to parameter uncertainties
Original publication
An economic model for different anticoagulation strategies in continuous renal replacement therapy. J Crit Care. Published 8 July 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →