Model results.

ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using mechanical thromboprophylaxis for patients undergoing a cesarean delivery in Brazil.MethodsA decision-analytic model built in TreeAge software was used to compare the cost and effectiveness of intermittent pneumatic compression to prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin or no prophylaxis from the perspective of the hospital. Related adverse events were venous thromboembolism, minor bleeding, and major bleeding. Model data were sourced from peer-reviewed studies through a structured literature search. A willingness-to-pay threshold of R$15,000 per avoided adverse event was adopted. Scenario, one-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of uncertainties on the results.ResultsThe costs of care related to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and associated adverse events ranged from R$914 for no prophylaxis to R$1,301 for low-molecular-weight heparin. With an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of R$7,843 per adverse event avoided. Intermittent pneumatic compression was cost-effective compared to no prophylaxis. With lower costs and improved effectiveness, intermittent pneumatic compression dominated low-molecular-weight heparin. The probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the probability of being cost-effective was comparable for intermittent pneumatic compression and no prophylaxis, with low-molecular-weight heparin unlikely to be considered cost-effective (0.07).ConclusionsIntermittent pneumatic compression could be a cost-effective option and is likely to be more appropriate than low-molecular-weight heparin when used for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for cesarean delivery in Brazil. Use of thromboprophylaxis should be a risk-stratified, individualized approach.