Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of two thromboprophylactic strategies following major surgery


Patients recovering from major surgery are at high risk of developing life-threatening deep venous thrombosis, which is a key source of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Our objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of two different thromboprophylactic agents for patients admitted to the ICU after high-risk surgery: intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) and anti-embolism stockings (AES).


A decision model (TreeAge Software 2010) was constructed simulating the impact of AES and IPS on patient outcomes and costs following high-risk surgery in the UK. Probabilities were assessed from published data [1]. ICU and item costs were derived from NHS reference costs tablets. Assessed outcomes were cost per deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) prevented, net monetary benefit and incremental costs per quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALY) gained.


Total costs for in-patients receiving AES were £923 and £1,010 for patients treated with IPC. Equipment costs and cost of initial care were higher in patients who received IPC, but this was partly offset by a reduction in costs related to treatment of early (DVT and PE) and late complications (post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary hypertension). IPC treatment increased QALY by approximately 0.01 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the IPC device was £12,650 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the most sensitive variables were probability of developing a DVT resulting from the insignificant difference in treatment efficacy.


Based on UK cost-effectiveness guidelines, our results indicate that IPC stockings should be used for patients at high risk of developing DVT. IPCs decrease the incidence of developing DVT and therefore result in cost savings related to preventive and therapeutic actions. For patients at low risk of developing DVT, AES are favoured due to higher utility and lower maintenance costs associated with AES. Due to the lack of reliable data on the incidence of PE as well as the absence of reliable head-to-head studies between IPC and AES, no generalisable conclusion to favour either strategy can be made.


  1. 1.

    Roderick P, Ferris G, Wilson K, Halls H: Towards evidence-based guidelines for the prevention of venous thromboembolism: systematic reviews of mechanical methods, oral anticoagulants, dextran and regional anaesthesia for thromboprophylaxis. Health Technol Assess 2005,9(49):iii-iv. 1-78

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Rights and permissions

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ebm, C., Cecconi, M., Rhodes, A. et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of two thromboprophylactic strategies following major surgery. Crit Care 16, P422 (2012).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Pulmonary Embolism
  • Pulmonary Hypertension
  • Deep Vein Thrombosis
  • Deep Venous Thrombosis
  • Intermittent Pneumatic Compression