Cost-effectiveness analysis of immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus standard grafts for hemodialysis.
Arteriovenous Shunt, Surgical
/ adverse effects
Blood Vessel Prosthesis
/ economics
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation
/ adverse effects
Catheterization
/ economics
Clinical Decision-Making
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Decision Support Techniques
Health Care Costs
Humans
Markov Chains
Models, Economic
Prosthesis Design
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Renal Dialysis
/ adverse effects
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Cost-effectiveness analysis
Early cannulation arteriovenous graft
Hemodialysis access
Immediate-access arteriovenous graft
Journal
Journal of vascular surgery
ISSN: 1097-6809
Titre abrégé: J Vasc Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8407742
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2021
02 2021
Historique:
received:
31
10
2019
accepted:
14
05
2020
pubmed:
31
5
2020
medline:
31
8
2021
entrez:
31
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Immediate-access arteriovenous grafts (IAAVGs), or early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (AVGs), are more expensive than standard grafts (sAVGs) but can be used immediately after placement, reducing the need for a tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC). We hypothesized that a decrease in TDC-related complications would make IAAVGs a cost-effective alternative to sAVGs. We constructed a Markov state-transition model in which patients initially received either an IAAVG or an sAVG and a TDC until graft usability; patients were followed through multiple subsequent access procedures for a 60-month time horizon. The model simulated mortality and typical graft- and TDC-related complications, with parameter estimates including probabilities, costs, and utilities derived from previous literature. A key parameter was median time to TDC removal after graft placement, which was studied under both real-world (7 days for IAAVG and 70 days for sAVG) and ideal (no TDC placed with IAAVG and 1 month for sAVG) conditions. Costs were based on current Medicare reimbursement rates and reflect a payer perspective. Both microsimulation (10,000 trials) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (10,000 samples) were performed. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). IAAVG placement is a dominant strategy under both real-world ($1201.16 less expensive and 0.03 QALY more effective) and ideal ($1457.97 less expensive and 0.03 QALY more effective) conditions. Under real-world parameters, the result was most sensitive to the time to TDC removal; IAAVGs are cost-effective if a TDC is maintained for ≥23 days after sAVG placement. The mean catheter time was lower with IAAVG (3.9 vs 8.7 months; P < .0001), as was the mean number of access-related infections (0.55 vs 0.74; P < .0001). Median survival in the model was 29 months. Overall mortality was similar between groups (76.3% vs 76.7% at 5 years; P = .33), but access-related mortality trended toward improvement with IAAVG (6.1% vs 6.8% at 5 years; P = .052). The Markov decision analysis model supported our hypothesis that IAAVGs come with added initial cost but are ultimately cost-saving and more effective. This apparent benefit is due to our prediction that a decreased number of catheter days per patient would lead to a decreased number of access-related infections.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32473345
pii: S0741-5214(20)31294-5
doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.05.038
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
581-587Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.