IN.PACT AV Access Trial: Economic Evaluation of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for Dysfunctional Arteriovenous Fistulae Based on 12-Month Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To study, from a U.S. payer's perspective, the economic consequences of drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) use for the treatment of stenotic lesions in dysfunctional hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cost differences between DCBs and PTA at year 1 and beyond were calculated via 2 methods. The first approach used the mean absolute number of trial-observed access circuit reinterventions through 12 months (0.65 ± 1.05 vs 1.05 ± 1.18 events per patient for DCBs and PTA, respectively) and projected treatment outcomes to 3 years. The second approach was based on the trial-observed access circuit primary patency rates at 12 months (53.8% vs 32.4%) and calculated the cost difference on the basis of previously published Medicare cost for patients who maintained or did not maintain primary patency. Assumptions regarding DCB device prices were tested in sensitivity analyses, and the numbers needed to treat were calculated. RESULTS: Using the absolute number of access circuit reinterventions approach, the DCB strategy resulted in an estimated per-patient savings of $1,632 at 1 year and $4,263 at 3 years before considering the DCB device cost. The access circuit primary patency approach was associated with a per-patient cost savings of $2,152 at 1 year and $3,894 at 2.5 years of follow-up. At the theoretical DCB device reimbursement of $1,800, savings were $1,680 and $2,049 at 2.5 and 3 years, respectively. The one-year NNT of DCB compared to PTA was 2.48. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular therapy for arteriovenous access stenosis with the IN.PACT AV DCB can be expected to be cost-saving if longer follow-up data confirm its clinical effectiveness.

Medicare Costs Associated With Arteriovenous Fistulas Among US Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: An arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the recommended vascular access for hemodialysis (HD). Previous studies have not examined the resources and costs associated with creating and maintaining AVFs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Elderly US Medicare patients initiating hemodialysis therapy during 2010 to 2011. PREDICTOR: AVF primary and secondary patency and nonuse in the first year following AVF creation. OUTCOMES: Annualized vascular access costs per patient per year. RESULTS: Among patients with only a catheter at HD therapy initiation, only 54% of AVFs were successfully used for HD, 10% were used but experienced secondary patency loss within 1 year of creation, and 83% experienced primary patency loss within 1 year of creation. Mean vascular access costs per patient per year in the 2.5 years after AVF creation were $7,871 for AVFs that maintained primary patency in year 1, $13,282 for AVFs that experienced primary patency loss in year 1, $17,808 for AVFs that experienced secondary patency loss in year 1, and $31,630 for AVFs that were not used. Similar patterns were seen among patients with a mature AVF at HD therapy initiation and patients with a catheter and maturing AVF at HD therapy initiation. Overall, in 2013, fee-for-service Medicare paid $2.8 billion for dialysis vascular access-related services, ∼12% of all end-stage renal disease payments. LIMITATIONS: Lack of granularity with certain billing codes. CONCLUSIONS: AVF failure in the first year after creation is common and results in substantially higher health care costs. Compared with patients whose AVFs maintained primary patency, vascular access costs were 2 to 3 times higher for patients whose AVFs experienced primary or secondary patency loss and 4 times higher for patients who never used their AVFs. There is a need to improve AVF outcomes and reduce costs after AVF creation.

Access survival amongst hemodialysis patients referred for preventive angiography and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Referring hemodialysis patients for elective access angiography and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) is commonly done to prevent access failure, yet the effectiveness of this procedure remains unclear. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASURES: An observational matched cohort analysis among 40,132 Medicare beneficiaries receiving hemodialysis with a fistula or graft was performed. Cox regression was used to determine whether access intervention was associated with improved 1-year access survival. RESULTS: Nonsurgical access intervention was found to be frequent at a rate of 20.9 procedures per 100 access years. In the 1-year period after intervention using angiography and PTA, the overall access failure rate was 53.7 per 100 access years in the intervention group and 49.6 in the nonintervention group (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.08). Similar findings were also seen when the analysis was repeated in only fistulas (HR = 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.15) and grafts (HR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05). In patients with a low intra-access flow rate (HR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99) or a new access (HR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.89), angiography and PTA significantly increased access survival when compared with nonintervention (P for interaction was <0.0001). Angiography-PTA-related upper-extremity hematoma, vessel injury, or embolism-thrombosis occurred in 1.1% of all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Access characteristics significantly modify the survival benefits of angiography and PTA intervention where the benefits of these interventions are most seen in newer accesses or accesses with insufficient flow.