Sylvia E Rosas1, Harold I Feldman. 1. Renal, Electrolyte and Hypertension Division, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Sylvia.rosas@uphs.upenn.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of 2 different vascular access strategies among incident dialysis patients. BACKGROUND: Vascular access is a principal cause of morbidity and cost in hemodialysis patients. Recent guidelines and initiatives are intended to increase the proportion of patients with a fistula. However, there is growing awareness of the high prevalence of fistula failures and attendant complications. METHODS: A decision analysis using a Markov model was implemented to compare 2 different vascular access strategies among incident dialysis patients: (1) placing an arteriovenous fistula (AVF1st) as the initial access followed by a synthetic vascular access if the AVF did not mature compared to (2) placing a synthetic vascular access (SVA1st) as the initial access device. The cost-utility was evaluated across a range of the risk of complications from temporary catheters and SVA. RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, the AVF1st strategy yielded 2.19 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with 2.06 QALYs from the SVA1st strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness was $9389 per QALY for AVF1st compared to SVA1st and was less than $50,000 per QALY as long as the probability of maturation is 36% or greater. AVF1st was the dominant strategy when the AVF maturation rate was 69% or greater. CONCLUSION: The high risk of complications of temporary catheters and the overall low AVF maturation rate explain why a universal policy of AVF1st for all incident dialysis patients may not optimize clinical outcomes. Strong consideration should be given to a more patient-centered approach taking into account the likelihood of AVF maturation.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of 2 different vascular access strategies among incident dialysis patients. BACKGROUND: Vascular access is a principal cause of morbidity and cost in hemodialysis patients. Recent guidelines and initiatives are intended to increase the proportion of patients with a fistula. However, there is growing awareness of the high prevalence of fistula failures and attendant complications. METHODS: A decision analysis using a Markov model was implemented to compare 2 different vascular access strategies among incident dialysis patients: (1) placing an arteriovenous fistula (AVF1st) as the initial access followed by a synthetic vascular access if the AVF did not mature compared to (2) placing a synthetic vascular access (SVA1st) as the initial access device. The cost-utility was evaluated across a range of the risk of complications from temporary catheters and SVA. RESULTS: Under base case assumptions, the AVF1st strategy yielded 2.19 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with 2.06 QALYs from the SVA1st strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness was $9389 per QALY for AVF1st compared to SVA1st and was less than $50,000 per QALY as long as the probability of maturation is 36% or greater. AVF1st was the dominant strategy when the AVF maturation rate was 69% or greater. CONCLUSION: The high risk of complications of temporary catheters and the overall low AVF maturation rate explain why a universal policy of AVF1st for all incident dialysis patients may not optimize clinical outcomes. Strong consideration should be given to a more patient-centered approach taking into account the likelihood of AVF maturation.
Authors: David A Drew; Charmaine E Lok; Joshua T Cohen; Martin Wagner; Navdeep Tangri; Daniel E Weiner Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2014-07-25 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Kenneth J Woodside; Sarah Bell; Purna Mukhopadhyay; Kaitlyn J Repeck; Ian T Robinson; Ashley R Eckard; Sudipta Dasmunshi; Brett W Plattner; Jeffrey Pearson; Douglas E Schaubel; Ronald L Pisoni; Rajiv Saran Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2018-02-09 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Rasheeda K Hall; Evan R Myers; Sylvia E Rosas; Ann M O'Hare; Cathleen S Colón-Emeric Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Tushar J Vachharajani; Louise M Moist; Marc H Glickman; Miguel A Vazquez; Kevan R Polkinghorne; Charmaine E Lok; Timmy C Lee Journal: Nat Rev Nephrol Date: 2013-12-03 Impact factor: 28.314
Authors: Hye Yun Jeong; Eun Jung Ko; Sang Hoon Kim; Mi Jung Lee; Hye Jeong Cho; Dong Ho Yang; So Young Lee Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 2.759