Cost Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared with Warfarin in Patients with Blunt Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhages

Abstract

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are rapidly gaining popularity as alternatives to warfarin in the prevention of stroke or systemic embolic events because of the simplicity of their dosing and lack of monitoring requirement. Many physicians feared that these novel agents would be cost-prohibitive not only in their administration but also in their sequelae of bleeding, given the few reversal agents available. Whereas the medication itself is more expensive than traditional warfarin, the total cost of a hospital admission has not been compared between patients on DOACs and warfarin who have sustained a blunt traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). We conducted a retrospective review of our hospital's trauma database from June 2011 through September 2015 at our Level II trauma center of patients who suffered from an ICH who were anticoagulated at the time of their trauma. Patients who died during their hospital admission or were exclusively on antiplatelet agents were excluded. Of the 136 patients studied, 79 were on warfarin and 57 were on a DOAC at the time of their presentation for a traumatic ICH. The average charged cost for the hospital stay of a patient with an ICH was significantly higher for patients on warfarin compared with DOACs [$70,384.08 vs $49,226.66 (P = 0.02)]. The average reimbursement rate for the hospital was also significantly higher for those patients on warfarin as compared with those on DOACs [$23,922.93 vs $14,705.77 (P = 0.02)]. DOACs are associated with a significant cost benefit in patients admitted for blunt traumatic ICHs when compared with those on warfarin.