Cost-effectiveness analysis of immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus standard grafts for hemodialysis.

OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Comparison between Surgical and Endovascular Hemodialysis Arteriovenous Fistula Interventions and Associated Costs.

PURPOSE: To compare: (i) rate of arteriovenous fistula (AVF) interventions in both incident and prevalent end-stage kidney disease patients; (ii) their associated costs; and (iii) intervention-free survival between patients with surgical hemodialysis arteriovenous fistula (SAVF) versus those with an endovascularly created fistula (endoAVF). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) were abstracted to determine the rate of AVF interventions performed in the first year and associated costs (based on Medicare payment rates) for SAVFs created from 2011 to 2013 in the incident and prevalent patient cohorts. Comparative data for endoAVF were obtained from the Novel Endovascular Access Trial (NEAT). Event rates, intervention-free survival, and costs were compared between endoAVF and SAVF cohorts after 1:1 propensity score (PS) matching. RESULTS: In the matched incident patients, the event rate was 0.74 per patient-year (PY) for endoAVF versus 7.22/PY for SAVF (P < .0001), with a difference in expenditures of $16,494. Similarly, in matched prevalent patients the event rate was 0.46/PY for endoAVF vs 4.10/PY for SAVF (P < .0001), resulting in a cost difference of $13,389. Time-to-event analysis showed that at 1 year, 70% of endoAVF patients experienced freedom from intervention versus only 18% of SAVF patients for incident patients; these numbers were 62% and 18% for endoAVF and SAVF prevalent patients, respectively (P < .0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Both incident and prevalent patients with endoAVF required fewer interventions and had lower costs within the first year compared with matched patients with SAVF.

What is the best setting for receiving dialysis vascular access repair and maintenance services?

INTRODUCTION: Advances in dialysis vascular access (DVA) management have changed where beneficiaries receive this care. The effectiveness, safety, quality, and economy of different care settings have been questioned. This study compares patient outcomes of receiving DVA services in the freestanding office-based center (FOC) to those of the hospital outpatient department (HOPD). It also examines whether outcomes differ for a centrally managed system of FOCs (CMFOC) compared to all other FOCs (AOFOC). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of clinically and demographically similar patients within Medicare claims available through United States Renal Data System (USRDS) (2010-2013) who received at least 80% of DVA services in an FOC (n = 80,831) or HOPD (n = 133,965). Separately, FOC population is divided into CMFOC (n = 20,802) and AOFOC (n = 80,267). Propensity matching was used to control for clinical, demographic, and functional characteristics across populations. RESULTS: FOC patients experienced significantly better outcomes, including lower annual mortality (14.6% vs. 17.2%, p<0.001) and DVA-related infections (0.16 vs. 0.20, p<0.001), fewer hospitalizations (1.65 vs. 1.91, p<0.001), and lower total per-member-per-month (PMPM) payments ($5042 vs. $5361, p<0.001) than HOPD patients. CMFOC patients had lower annual mortality (12.5% vs. 13.8%, p<0.001), PMPM payments (DVA services) ($1486 vs. $1533, p<0.001) and hospitalizations ($1752 vs. $1816, p<0.001) than AOFOC patients. CONCLUSIONS: Where nephrologists send patients for DVA services can impact patient clinical and economic outcomes. This research confirmed that patients who received DVA care in the FOC had better outcomes than those treated in the HOPD. The organizational culture and clinical oversight of the CMFOC may result in more favorable outcomes than receiving care in AOFOC.