Objectives: Patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) (deep vein thrombosis [DVT] and pulmonary embolism [PE]) are commonly treated as outpatients. Traditionally, patients are anticoagulated with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and warfarin, resulting in return visits to the ED. The direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) medications do not require therapeutic monitoring or repeat visits; however, they are more expensive. This study compared health costs, from the hospital and patient perspectives, between traditional versus DOAC therapy. Methods: A chart review of VTE cases at two tertiary, urban hospitals from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 was performed to capture historical practice in VTE management, using LMWH/warfarin. This historical data were compared against data derived from clinical trials, where a DOAC was used. Cost minimization analyses comparing the two modes of anticoagulation were completed from hospital and patient perspectives. Results: Of the 207 cases in the cohort, only 130 (63.2%) were therapeutically anticoagulated (international normalized ratio 2.0-3.0) at emergency department (ED) discharge; patients returned for a mean of 7.18 (range: 1-21) visits. Twenty-one (10%) were admitted to the hospital; 4 (1.9%) were related to VTE or anticoagulation complications. From a hospital perspective, a DOAC (in this case, rivaroxaban) had a total cost avoidance of $1,488.04 per VTE event, per patient. From a patient perspective, it would cost an additional $204.10 to $349.04 over 6 months, assuming no reimbursement. Conclusions: VTE management in the ED has opportunities for improvement. A DOAC is a viable and cost-effective strategy for VTE treatment from a hospital perspective and, depending on patient characteristics and values, may also be an appropriate and cost-effective option from a patient perspective. RÉSUMÉObjectif: Les patients souffrant d'une thromboembolie veineuse (TEV) (thrombose veineuse profonde [TVP] ou embolie pulmonaire [EP]) sont souvent traités en consultation externe. L'anticoagulation se réalise habituellement par l'héparine de faible masse moléculaire (HFMM) et par la warfarine, ce qui nécessite des consultations ultérieures au service des urgences (SU). Il existe aussi l'anticoagulation orale directe (AOD), qui ne nécessite pas de surveillance thérapeutique ou de consultations rapprochées, mais son coût est plus élevé que celui du traitement classique. L'étude décrite ici visait donc à comparer les coûts, liés aux soins de santé, de l'anticoagulation classique avec ceux de l'AOD, et ce, tant pour les hôpitaux que pour les patients. Méthode: Les auteurs ont procédé à un examen des dossiers des cas de TEV traités dans deux hôpitaux urbains, de soins tertiaires, pour la période du 1 er janvier 2010 au 31 décembre 2012, afin de recueillir des données sur la pratique historique du traitement de la TEV par l'HFMM et la warfarine. Il y a eu par la suite comparaison des données historiques avec celles provenant d'essais cliniques d'anticoagulants oraux directs. Enfin...