Bridging versus Non-Bridging with Warfarin Peri-Procedural Management: Cost and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

Abstract Background The warfarin peri-procedural management in Qatar is predominantly based on bridging (63%), compared to non-bridging. This study sought to perform a first-time cost analysis of current warfarin peri-procedural management practices, including a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of predominant bridging versus predominant non-bridging practices. Methods From the hospital perspective, a one-year decision-analytic model followed the cost and success consequences of the peri-procedural warfarin in a hypothetical cohort of 10.000 atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Success was defined as survival with no adverse events (AEs). Outcome measures were the cost and success consequences of the 63% bridging (versus not-bridging) practice in the study setting, i.e., Hamad Medical Corporation, Qatar, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER, cost/success) of the warfarin therapy when predominantly bridging based versus when predominantly non-bridging based. The model was based on Monte Carlo simulation, and sensitivity analyses were performed to confirm the robustness of the study conclusions. Results As per 63% bridging practices, the mean overall cost of peri-procedural warfarin management per patient was USD 3,260 (QAR 11,900), associated with an overall success rate of 0.752. Based on the CEA, predominant bridging was dominant (lower cost, higher effect) over the predominant non-bridging practice in 62.2% of simulated cases, with a cost-saving of up to USD 2,001 (QAR 7,303) at an average of USD 272 (QAR 993) and was cost-effective in 36.9% of cases. Conclusion Being between cost-saving and cost-effective, compared to predominant non-bridging practices, the predominant use of bridging with warfarin seems to be a favorable strategy in AF patients.