Cost-effectiveness of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis versus standard anticoagulation in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis: Results from the ATTRACT trial

Elizabeth A. Magnuson, Khaja Chinnakondepalli, Katherine Vilain, Clive Kearon, Jim A. Julian, Susan R. Kahn, Samuel Z. Goldhaber, Michael R. Jaff, Andrei L. Kindzelski, Kevin Herman, Paul S. Brady, Karun Sharma, Carl M. Black, Suresh Vedantham, David J. Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Scopus citations


Background: In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis (PCDT) in conjunction with anticoagulation therapy is increasingly used with the goal of preventing postthrombotic syndrome. Long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of these 2 treatment strategies from the perspective of the US healthcare system have not been compared. Methods and Results: Between 2009 and 2014, the ATTRACT trial (Acute Venous Thrombosis: Thrombus Removal With Adjunctive Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis) randomized 692 patients with acute proximal DVT to PCDT plus anticoagulation (n=337) or standard treatment with anticoagulation alone (n=355). Costs (2017 US dollars) were assessed over a 24-month follow-up period using a combination of resource-based costing, hospital bills, Medicare reimbursement rates, and the Drug Topics Red Book. Health state utilities were obtained from the Short Form-36. In-trial results and US life tables were used to develop a Markov cohort model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. For the PCDT group, mean costs of the initial procedure were $13 600; per-patient costs associated with the index hospitalization were $21 509 for PCDT and $3877 for standard care (difference=$17 632; 95% CI, $16 117-$19 243). The 24-month difference in costs was $20 045 (95% CI, $16 093-$24 120). Utility scores increased significantly between baseline and 6 months for both groups, with no significant differences between groups at any follow-up time point. Projected differences in lifetime costs of $16 740 and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.08, yield an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for PCDT of $222 041/QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that PCDT would achieve a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000/QALY or <$150 000/QALY was 1% and 25%, respectively. For iliofemoral DVT, QALY gains with PCDT were greater, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $137 526/QALY; for femoral-popliteal DVT, standard therapy was an economically dominant strategy. Conclusions: With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio >$200 000/QALY gained, PCDT is not an economically attractive treatment for proximal DVT. PCDT may be of intermediate value in patients with iliofemoral DVT. Clinical Trial Registration URL: Unique identifier: NCT00790335.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere005659
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1 2019


  • Medicare
  • hospitalization
  • postthrombotic
  • quality-adjusted life years
  • syndrome
  • thrombosis


Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness of pharmacomechanical catheter-directed thrombolysis versus standard anticoagulation in patients with proximal deep vein thrombosis: Results from the ATTRACT trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this