What are the reported procedural costs of vascular access surgery?

INTRODUCTION: Since the inception of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) as a novel technique, there has been greater emphasis on the assessment of outcomes rather than costs. Gross-costing methods over-simplify vascular access surgery and do not reflect the true costs of the service, preventing accurate cost-effectiveness analysis. The aim of this study is to assess the reporting of procedural costs of arteriovenous access creation in economic analyses of vascular access surgery, and to compare the reported costs of the two most performed procedures - arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and arteriovenous graft (AVG). METHODS: This systematic review included studies reporting a per-procedure cost for AVF or AVG creation. Costs were adjusted from original to target price year using a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator index and converted to 2021 US Dollars using conversion rates based on purchasing power parities. RESULTS: The results demonstrate wide discrepancy in the reported procedural costs of arteriovenous access creation. Most of the data represents retrospectively observed costs rather than prospective data collected on an intention-to-treat basis. Charges are frequently presented in lieu of costs, and aggregated gross-costing methodology predominates rather than more accurate micro-costing. CONCLUSION: Future micro-costing studies of vascular access surgery are essential to allow a greater understanding of cost-drivers and allow accurate cost-effectiveness analysis.

Quality assurance in surgical trials of arteriovenous grafts for haemodialysis: A systematic review, a narrative exploration and expert recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Introducing new procedures and challenging established paradigms requires well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCT). However, RCT in surgery present unique challenges with much of treatment tailored to the individual patient circumstances, refined by experience and limited by organisational factors. There has been considerable debate over the outcomes of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) compared to AVF, but any differences may reflect differing practice and potential variability. It is essential, therefore, when considering an RCT of a novel surgical procedure or device that quality assurance (QA) is defined for both the new approach and the comparator. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the QA standards performed in RCT of AVG using a multi-national, multi-disciplinary approach and propose an approach for future RCT. METHOD: The methods of this have been previously registered (PROSPERO: CRD420234284280) and published. In summary, a four-stage review was performed: identification of RCT of AVG, initial review, multidisciplinary appraisal of QA methods and reconciliation. QA measures were sought in four areas - generic, credentialing, standardisation and monitoring, with data abstracted by a multi-national, multi-speciality review body. RESULTS: QA in RCT involving AVG in all four domains is highly variable, often sub-optimally described and has not improved over the past three decades. Few RCT established or defined a pre-RCT level of experience, none documented a pre-trial education programme, or had minimal standards of peri-operative management, no study had a defined pre-trial monitoring programme, and none assessed technical performance. CONCLUSION: QA in RCT is a relatively new area that is expanding to ensure evidence is reliable and reproducible. This review demonstrates that QA has not previously been detailed, but can be measured in surgical RCT of vascular access, and that a four-domain approach can easily be implemented into future RCT.

What are the observed procedural costs of vascular access surgery? Protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: A central component in the introduction of a novel surgical procedure or technique is an evaluation of its cost efficiency when compared with a benchmark standard of care. Accurate assessment of costs is thus essential in ensuring appropriate allocation of resources within a healthcare system. The treatment of kidney failure requires a significant volume of resources, and vascular access provision is the main modifiable cost. The costs of providing this service are obscured by generic NHS reference costs, which lack adequate granularity to allow meaningful comparisons between treatments. The aim of this systematic review will be to assess the reporting of procedural costs in all published economic analyses of vascular access surgery and perform a comparison of the reported procedural costs involved in arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and arteriovenous graft (AVG) creation. This will provide an estimate as to the accuracy of the NHS reference costs in this field. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. A systematic search will be performed of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify full-text economic analyses of vascular access for haemodialysis in which the procedural cost of AVF or AVG creation is reported. Publications in English from 1 January 2000 to 30 August 2023, will be eligible for inclusion. Studies will be selected by title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies not reporting the procedural costs of surgery will be excluded. Data collected will pertain to procedural costs of AVF and AVG creation. Costs will be adjusted to a common currency using a gross domestic product (GDP) deflator index and conversion rates based on purchasing power parities for GDP. Comparison with NHS reference costs will indicate their reliability for use in future economic analyses in this field. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023458779.

Early-cannulation arteriovenous grafts: Multidisciplinary learning is essential to optimize outcomes.

BACKGROUND: It is likely that there will be an increasing role for early-cannulation arteriovenous grafts (ecAVG) with a wider recognition of the need to tailor vascular access to avoid futile procedures and unnecessary TCVC. However, experience of these products is not common and limited to early surgical adopters, with little information on the systemic changes and multi-disciplinary care needed to optimize outcomes. The aim of this study was to report the impact of a multi-disciplinary approach on quantifiable outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of 295 ecAVG implanted over an 8-year time-period was performed. Indicative outcomes were chosen to reflect nephrology (patient selection), nursing care (cannulation complications of infection and pseudoaneurysm) and radiology (thrombosis) on cumulative impact (functional patency) over three distinct time periods. RESULTS: The incidence of ecAVG increased 10-fold over the three time periods. The use of ecAVG changed significantly from salvage tertiary access to TCVC avoidance and salvage of existing AVF. Nursing complications reduced markedly with significantly fewer over-cannulation episodes and pseudo-aneurysms. With an improved pro-active surveillance programme, the time to first thrombosis doubled and the risk of thrombosis halved. Ultimately this resulted in significantly improved functional patency with a risk of ecAVG loss less than one-third by the last time-period. CONCLUSIONS: All aspects of ecAVG use require scrutiny and critical appraisal. Failure or success is not simply achieved by performing good technical surgery with an efficacious product, but by the care taken across a wide range of elements spanning case selection, implantation, use and maintenance.

Quality assurance in surgical trials of arteriovenous grafts for haemodialysis: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Decisions regarding the optimal vascular access for haemodialysis patients are becoming increasingly complex, and the provision of vascular access is open to variations in systems of care as well as surgical experience and practice. Two main surgical options are recognised: arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft (AVG). All recommendations regarding AVG are based on a limited number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). It is essential that when considering an RCT of a surgical procedure, an appropriate definition of quality assurance (QA) is made for both the new approach and the comparator, otherwise replication of results or implementation into clinical practice may differ from published results. The aim of this systematic review will be to assess the methodological quality of RCT involving AVG, and the QA measures implemented in delivering interventions in these trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines will be followed. A systematic search will be performed of the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases to identify relevant literature. Studies will be selected by title and abstract review, followed by a full-text review using inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data collected will pertain to generic measures of QA, credentialing of investigators, procedural standardisation and performance monitoring. Trial methodology will be compared against a standardised template developed by a multinational, multispecialty review body with experience in vascular access. A narrative approach will be taken to synthesise and report data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, with the ultimate aim of providing recommendations for future RCT of AVG design.

Recruitment into randomised trials of arteriovenous grafts: A systematic review.

Although randomised controlled trials (RCT) are considered the optimal form of evidence, there are relatively few in surgery. Surgical RCT are particularly likely to be discontinued with poor recruitment cited as a leading reason. Surgical RCT present challenges over and above those seen in drug trials as the treatment under study may vary between procedures, between surgeons in one unit, and between units in multi-centred RCT. The most contentious and debated area of vascular access remains the role of arteriovenous grafts, and thus the quality of the data that is used to support opinions, guidelines and recommendations is critical. The aim of this review was to determine the extent of variation in the planning and recruitment in all RCT involving AVG. The findings of this are stark: there have been only 31 RCT performed in 31 years, the vast majority of which exhibited major limitations severe enough to undermine the results. This underlines the need for better quality RCT and data, and further inform the design of future studies. Perhaps most fundamental is the planning for a RCT that accounts for the intended population, the uptake of a RCT and the attrition for the significant co-morbidity in this population.

The impact of stent-graft sizing on venous stenosis re-intervention and arteriovenous graft patency: Free-floating stent outflow is associated with improved outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Early cannulation arteriovenous grafts (ecAVG) for dialysis access are limited by reintervention for venous stenosis (VS) despite their good initial patency. Whilst stent-grafts (SG) have shown promise, the optimal sizing is unclear. Therefore, this study aims to determine if outflow vein diameter, SG diameter or these relative to each other (V:Sr) alters outcomes, and if so, which is more important. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of Gore® Acuseal® ecAVGs with VS treated with Gore® Viabahn® SG over a 7-year period. Primary patency (PP), time to thrombosis and functional patency were analysed by SG length/diameter, vein diameter and V:Sr. RESULTS: We identified 114 ecAVGs with median follow-up 492 days (IQR 189-770). SG length and diameter did not correlate with PP, however, there was a significant relationship between vein diameter and PP (RR = 0.901 (0.832-0.975), p = 0.01) and between V:Sr and PP (RR = 0.462 (0.255-0.838), x2 = 5.866, p = 0.0015). The optimal V:Sr was ⩾1.4 (i.e. vein diameter at least 40% greater than the stent-graft; or 'free-floating' stent outflow) (RR = 2.759 (1.670-4.558), p < 0.001), translating to a difference in median PP of 252 versus 496 days (IQR: 188-316; 322-670). On multivariate analysis, absolute vein diameter lost significance, whilst V:Sr remained an independently significant predictor of PP (RR = 3.247 (1.560-6.759), p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Placement of the SG outflow into a relatively larger segment of vein was associated with a significant increase in PP independent of the absolute vein diameter. This suggests that larger calibre SG which are apposed to the vein wall are not required for optimal primary patency, and indeed should be actively avoided. Instead, a 'free-floating' stent outflow which is undersized relative to the recipient vein (whilst maintaining a minimum anchoring calibre) is recommended where possible. This should be considered during intervention and may require selection of longer devices, where practical, to bring the stent outflow into a larger vein segment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3a, Non-randomised controlled cohort/follow-up study.