BACKGROUND: Outpatient versus inpatient treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is believed to result in equivalent outcomes with decreased costs. Little is known about the adoption of outpatient DVT treatment in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To describe the uptake of outpatient DVT treatment in the United States and understand how comorbidities and socioeconomic conditions impact the decision to treat as an outpatient. DESIGN AND SETTING: The Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke cohort study recruited 30,329 participants between 2003 and 2007. DVT events were ascertained through 2011. MEASUREMENTS: Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the correlates of outpatient treatment of DVT accounting for age, sex, race, education, income, urban or rural residence, and region of residence. RESULTS: Of 379 venous thromboembolism events, 141 participants had a DVT without diagnosed pulmonary embolism and that did not occur during hospitalization. Overall, 28% (39 of 141) of participants with DVT were treated as outpatients. In a multivariable model, the odds ratio for outpatient versus inpatient DVT treatment was 4.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-13.79) for urban versus rural dwellers, 3.29 (95% CI, 1.30-8.30) for white versus black patients, 2.41 (95% CI, 1.06-5.47) for women versus men, and 1.90 (95% CI, 1.19-3.02) for every 10 years younger in age. Living outside the southeastern United States and having higher education and income were not statistically significantly associated with outpatient treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Despite known safety and efficacy, only 28% of participants with DVT received outpatient treatment. This study highlights populations in which efforts could be made to reduce hospital admissions.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
The authors thank the staff and participants of REGARDS for their important contributions. The executive committee of REGARDS reviewed and approved this manuscript for publication. This research project is supported by cooperative agreement U01 NS041588 from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke or the National Institutes of Health. Representatives of the funding agency