Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Compared With Conventional Balloon Angioplasty for Arteriovenous Access Flow Dysfunction.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (cPTA) in patients with arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) dysfunction from a Singapore healthcare perspective. METHODS: Existing cost-effectiveness studies comparing DCB and cPTA have not incorporated AVF/AVG abandonment costs. This Markov model-based economic evaluation incorporated AVF/AVG creation and maturation costs on top of routine intervention costs to model a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old AVF/AVG flow dysfunction patients. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) at a Singapore willingness-to-pay threshold of Singapore dollar (S$)87 000. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine parameter uncertainty. To test hypotheses regarding cost-effectiveness, intervention counts per patient, cumulative incidence functions of AVF/AVG abandonment, and survival curves of death were compared between DCB and cPTA. RESULTS: DCB was not cost-effective at 3-year horizon (NMB = -S$1424), but was cost-effective at 1- and 6-year horizons (NMB = S$356 and S$3738, respectively). At 3 years, there was a 34.5% probability of DCB being cost-effective, but at 1- and 6-year horizons there was, respectively, 58.6% and 59.9% probability of DCB being cost-effective. DCB had graphically less AVF/AVG-abandonments, but this was not statistically significant (P = .21). Differences in other parameters were neither graphically nor statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: With AVF/AVG abandonment considered, DCB may be weakly cost-effective compared with cPTA in treating AVF/AVG flow dysfunction. AV access creation and maturation costs could have important explanatory value in assessing DCB cost-effectiveness.

Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Conventional Balloon Angioplasty for Treating Below-the-Knee Arteries in Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: The SINGA-PACLI Trial.

PURPOSE: Drug-coated balloon angioplasty (DCBA) has been studied as a potentially superior option compared to conventional percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) in treating below-the-knee (BTK) arteries in chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI). The aim of this study is to examine the cost-effectiveness of DCBA versus PTA in BTK arteries based on a randomized controlled trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective economic study was embedded in a randomized controlled trial of 138 patients with CLTI. Resource use and health outcomes were assessed at baseline, and at 3, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. Costs were calculated from a societal perspective and health outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life years with probabilistic sensitivity analysis performed to account for subject heterogeneity. RESULTS: Compared with participants randomized to receive PTA, participants randomized to DCBA gained an average baseline-adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of .012 while average total costs were USD$1854 higher; this translates to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$154,500 additional cost per QALY gained. However, the estimate of ICER had substantial variance with only 48% of bootstrap ICERs meeting a benchmark threshold of US$57,705 (the average gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of Singapore). CONCLUSION: The use of DCBA in BTK arteries in CLTI patients was not cost-effective compared with PTA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2, Randomized trial.

A survey of anxiety and burnout in the radiology workforce of a tertiary hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to study anxiety and burnout among Division of Radiological Sciences (RADSC) staff during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify potential risk and protective factors. These outcomes were compared with non-RADSC staff. METHODS: A cross-sectional online study was conducted between 12 March and 20 July 2020 in the largest public tertiary hospital receiving COVID-19 cases. Burnout and anxiety were assessed with the Physician Work-Life Scale and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Scale, respectively. Workplace factors were examined as potential risk and protective factors using multivariable ordinary least squares regression analyses, adjusting for pertinent demographic characteristics. RESULTS: RADSC staff (n = 180) and non-RADSC staff (n = 1458) demonstrated moderate-to-severe anxiety rates of 6.7 and 13.2 % and burnout rates of 17.8 and 23.9 %, respectively. RADSC staff reported significantly lower anxiety (mean ± SD: 4.0 ± 3.7 vs 4.9 ± 4.5; P-value < 0.05), burnout (mean ± SD: 1.9 ± 0.7 vs 2.1 ± 0.8; P-value < 0.01), increased teamwork (82.2% vs 74.1%; P-value < 0.05) and fewer night shifts (36.7% vs 41.1%; P-value < 0.01). Among RADSC staff, higher job dedication was associated with lower anxiety (b (95% CI) = -0.28 (-0.45, -0.11)) and burnout (b (95% CI) = -0.07 (-0.11,-0.04)), while longer than usual working hours was associated with increased anxiety (b (95% CI) = 1.42 (0.36, 2.45)) and burnout (b (95% CI) = 0.28 (0.09, 0.48)). CONCLUSIONS: A proportion of RADSC staff reported significant burnout and anxiety, although less compared to the larger hospital cohort. Measures to prevent longer than usual work hours and increase feelings of enthusiasm and pride in one's job may further reduce the prevalence of anxiety problems and burnout in radiology departments.