Cost-saving approach to patients on long-term anticoagulation who need endoscopy: a decision analysis

The management strategies used when patients requiring long-term anticoagulation need endoscopic procedures vary considerably. Two commonly used approaches are a "heparin window" strategy in the inpatient setting and, more recently, a "switch to low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)" strategy for elective procedures. The aim of this study was to determine whether an initial diagnostic endoscopy (visualization only) is a cost-effective strategy in these patients.

Decision analysis was performed for two scenarios using probability estimates from our retrospective study. Scenario 1: Patients with any (urgent and elective) indication for endoscopy while on anticoagulation. A decision tree was made outlining two strategies: 1) a diagnostic endoscopy on full anticoagulation followed by therapeutic endoscopy if needed using standard practice; and 2) standard approach. Scenario 2: Patients requiring elective endoscopy. Here, the decision tree outlined three strategies: 1) initial diagnostic endoscopy on full anticoagulation followed by a therapeutic endoscopy if needed using a "heparin window"; 2) initial diagnostic endoscopy followed by therapeutic endoscopy if needed using "switch to LMWH" strategy; and 3) "direct switch to LMWH strategy."

Initial diagnostic endoscopy is the preferred strategy when patients requiring anticoagulation need endoscopy. In scenario 1 (all patients), the diagnostic endoscopy approach will reduce need for hospital stay and save $85,006 per 100 patients when a therapeutic impact is not predictable before endoscopy. Similarly, in scenario 2, an initial diagnostic endoscopy followed by switch to LMWH strategy is the most cost saving.

In anticoagulated patients, an initial diagnostic endoscopy approach on anticoagulation is the most cost-saving strategy, when a direct therapeutic impact is not predictable.