Health economics aspects of kidney transplantation in Sicily: a benchmark analysis on activity and estimated savings.

Background: International and national registries consistently report substantial differences in kidney transplant (KT) activity despite demonstrable clinical and financial benefits. The study aims to estimate the financial resources gained by KT and produce a benchmark analysis that would inform adequate strategies for the growth of the service. Methods: We analyzed the KT activity in our region between 2017 and 2019. The benchmark analysis was conducted with programs identified from national and international registries. The estimate of financial resources was obtained by applying the kidney transplant coefficient of value; subsequently, we compared the different activity levels and savings generated by the three KT programs. Findings: The KT activity in the region progressively declined in the study years, producing a parallel reduction of the estimated savings. Such savings were substantially inferior when compared to those generated by benchmark programs (range €18-22 million less). Interpretation: The factors influencing the reduced KT activity in the study period with the related "foregone savings" are multiple, as well as interdependent. Organ donation, access to the transplant waiting list, and KT from living donors appear to be the most prominent determinants of the observed different levels of activities. International experience suggests that a comprehensive strategy in the form of a "task force" may successfully address the critical areas of the service reversing the observed trend. The financial impact of a progressively reduced KT activity may be as critical as its clinical implications, jeopardizing the actual sustainability of services for patients with end-stage kidney disease.

The New UK National Kidney Allocation Scheme With Maximized "R4-D4" Kidney Transplants: Better Patient-to-Graft Longevity Matching May Be at the Cost of More Resources.

OBJECTIVES: A new kidney matching scheme for allocation of deceased donor kidneys for transplantation was introduced in the United Kingdom in September 2019. Donors and recipients are stratified into quartiles derived from demographic and retrieval indices associated with risk of adverse outcome. We present data on 2 years of transplants, with the aim of understanding the potential impacts ofthe scheme on patient/transplant outcomes, hospitalization, and resource utilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All deceased donortransplants from 2015 and 2016 were reclassified using the risk quartiles (D1-D4 for donor and R1-R4 for recipient, where 4 is highestrisk). Inpatientlength of stay, kidney function defined by estimated glomerular rate at 1 year, and patient survival data were collected. RESULTS: Of the 195 deceased donor transplants analyzed, 144 recipients (73.4%) were in the highest risk R4 category, including 55 with R4-D4 combination (28.1%). Recipients in the R4 category had longer index admissions (mean of 12.4 vs 8.1 days for R1-R3; P = .002) and higher subsequent admission rates 90 days posttransplant(185.7 vs 122.7/1000 patient days for R1-R3; P < .001). Kidney transplant function at 1 year was lower for grafts categorized as D4 (mean estimated glomerular filtration rate of 35.7 vs 54.8 mL/min/1.73 m2 for D1-D3; P < .001). However, survival for R4 recipients with D4 kidneys was not significantly differentfrom R4 recipients with D1 to D3 kidneys (4-year patient survival rate with R4-D4 combination was 90.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The principles ofthe allocation scheme in matching graft and patient survival were already largely being observed (matching higher risk deceased donor kidneys to higher risk recipients). However, an increase in D4 proportions in the R4 group may be associated with longer hospitalization posttransplant. Consideration should be given to mitigation strategies to address this. Despite poorer graft function, patient survival appears satisfactory.

Viability assessment and utilization of declined donor kidneys with rhabdomyolysis using ex vivo normothermic perfusion without preimplantation biopsy.

The role of ex vivo normothermic perfusion (EVNP) in both organ viability assessment and reconditioning is increasingly being demonstrated. We report the use of this emerging technology to facilitate the transplantation of a pair of donor kidneys with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) secondary to rhabdomyolysis. Donor creatinine was 10.18 mg/dl with protein (30 mg/dl) present in urinalysis. Both kidneys were declined by all other transplantation units and subsequently accepted by our unit. The first kidney was perfused with red cell-based perfusate at 37°C for 75 min, mean renal blood flow was 110 ml/min/100 g and produced 85 ml of urine. Having demonstrated favorable macroscopic appearance and urine output, the kidney was transplanted into a 61-year-old peritoneal dialysis dependent without complication. Given the reassuring information from the first kidney provided by EVNP, the second kidney was not perfused with EVNP and was directly implanted to a 64-year-old patient. The first kidney achieved primary function and the second functioned well after delayed graft function. Recipient eGFR have stabilized at 88.5 and 55.3, respectively (ml/min/1.73 m2 ), at 2 months posttransplant.

Long-Term Functional Patency and Cost-Effectiveness of Arteriovenous Fistula Creation under Regional Anesthesia: a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia improves short-term blood flow through arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs). We previously demonstrated that, compared with local anesthesia, regional anesthesia improves primary AVF patency at 3 months. METHODS: To study the effects of regional versus local anesthesia on longer-term AVF patency, we performed an observer-blinded randomized controlled trial at three university hospitals in Glasgow, United Kingdom. We randomly assigned 126 patients undergoing primary radiocephalic or brachiocephalic AVF creation to receive regional anesthesia (brachial plexus block; 0.5% L-bupivacaine and 1.5% lidocaine with epinephrine) or local anesthesia (0.5% L-bupivacaine and 1% lidocaine). This report includes findings on primary, functional, and secondary patency at 12 months; reinterventions; and additional access procedures (primary outcome measures were previously reported). We analyzed data by intention to treat, and also performed cost-effectiveness analyses. RESULTS: At 12 months, we found higher primary patency among patients receiving regional versus local anesthesia (50 of 63 [79%] versus 37 of 63 [59%] patients; odds ratio [OR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.6 to 3.8; P=0.02) as well as higher functional patency (43 of 63 [68%] versus 31 of 63 [49%] patients; OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.7; P=0.008). In 12 months, 21 revisional procedures, 53 new AVFs, and 50 temporary dialysis catheters were required. Regional anesthesia resulted in net savings of £195.10 (US$237.36) per patient at 1 year, and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of approximately £12,900 (US$15,694.20) per quality-adjusted life years over a 5-year time horizon. Results were robust after extensive sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with local anesthesia, regional anesthesia significantly improved both primary and functional AVF patency at 1 year and is cost-effective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER: Local Anaesthesia versus Regional Block for Arteriovenous Fistulae, NCT01706354.

The Last Year Before Graft Failure Negatively Impacts Economic Outcomes and is Associated With Greater Healthcare Resource Utilization Compared With Previous Years in the United Kingdom: Results of a Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Kidney and liver transplantation is the standard of care for end-stage renal or liver disease. However, long-term survival of kidney and liver grafts remain suboptimal. Our study aimed to understand the healthcare resources utilized and their associated costs in the years before graft failure. METHODS: Two noninterventional, retrospective, observational studies were conducted in cohorts of kidney or liver transplant patients. Once identified, patients were followed using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics databases from the date of transplantation to the date of the first graft failure. Total healthcare costs in the year before graft failure (primary endpoint) and during years 2-5 before graft failure (secondary endpoint) were collected. RESULTS: A total of 269 kidney and 81 liver transplant patients were analyzed. The mean total costs were highest for all resource components in the last year before graft failure, except for mean costs of immunosuppressive therapy per patient, which decreased slightly by index date (ie, graft failure). The mean total healthcare costs in the last year before graft failure were £8115 for kidney and £9988 for liver transplant patients and were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than years 2-5 before graft failure. Mean healthcare costs for years 2, 3, 4, and 5 before graft failure were £5925, £5575, £5469, and £5468, respectively, for kidney, and £6763, £7042, £6020, and £5651, respectively, for liver transplant patients. CONCLUSIONS: Total healthcare costs in the last year before graft failure are substantial and statistically significantly higher than years 2-5 before graft failure, in both kidney and liver transplant patients. Our findings show the economic burden placed on healthcare services in the years before graft failure.