• C K Okerberg, L A Williams, M L Kilgore, C H Kim, M B Marques, J Schwartz, and H P Pham.
• Department of Health Care Organization and Policy, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
• Vox Sang. 2016 Oct 1; 111 (3): 292-298.

BackgroundFibrinogen repletion in patients with acquired bleeding disorders can be accomplished by transfusing cryoprecipitate AHF (cryo) or fibrinogen concentrate (FC); thus, we undertook an economic evaluation from the transfusion service perspective regarding the use of cryo vs. FC in patients with acquired bleeding.MethodsWe created a model comparing the cost of cryo vs. FC from the transfusion service perspective. A patient with acquired bleeding requiring fibrinogen replacement could receive either 15-20 cryo units or 3-4 g FC, consistent with the guidelines from the European Task Force for Advanced Bleeding Care in Trauma. All model parameters were estimated from institutional experiences and the medical literature. Additionally, a survey of US Transfusion Medicine fellowship directors was conducted.ResultsAfter adjusting for 28% wastage and technologist salary, cryo cost is $414/5-unit pool. Depending on the dose, FC is more expensive by $976-$1303. To be competitive with cryo, FC cost must decrease by 44% or be shown to save 0·25-0·66 ICU days. Of the 30 survey replies, 96·7% of US centres do not use FC for acquired bleeding with the top three reasons being cost (30%), off-label usage (27%) and insufficient evidence for usage (20%). Only 47% are willing to pay more for FC, with $437/g as the median amount.ConclusionFibrinogen concentrate is more expensive than cryo, even after adjusting for cryo wastage. To be economically competitive with cryo, FC must cost $414/g, or save on ICU length of stay, consistent with the survey's results.© 2016 International Society of Blood Transfusion.

21 keywords...

hide…