Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular vs surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: In the United States, an estimated $2.8 billion annually is spent on vascular access and its complications. Endovascular arteriovenous fistula (endoAVF) creation is a novel, minimally invasive alternative to traditional surgical AV fistula (sAVF) creation in ≤60% of patients. Although cost effective in single-payer systems, the clinical and financial impact of endoAVF in the United States remains uncertain. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree followed by a probabilistic cohort state-transition model to study the cost effectiveness of endoAVF vs sAVF creation. We conducted a systematic review to obtain input parameters including technical success, maturation, patency, and utility values. We derived costs from the Medicare 2022 fee schedule and from the literature. We used a 5-year time horizon, an annual discount rate of 3% for costs and utilities (measured in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and the common willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000. One-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed varying technical success, patency, reintervention, cost, and utility parameters. RESULTS: In the base-case scenario, endoAVF ($30,129 average per-person costs, 2.19 QALYs gained, 65% patent at 5 years) was not cost effective compared with sAVF ($12.987 average per-person costs, 2.11 QALYs gained, 66% patent at 5 years), generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $227,504 per QALY gained. In one-way sensitivity analyses, endoAVF becomes cost effective when the initial cost of sAVF creation exceeds endoAVF by ≥$600 (eg, if endoAVF creation costs ≤$3000 relative to the base-case sAVF cost of $3600), the additional QALYs gained from endoAVF exceeds 0.12 QALYs/year (eg, 0.81 QALYs gained/year from endoAVF compared with base-case sAVF 0.69 QALYs/year), the endoAVF maturation rate is >90% (base case 78%), or the sAVF maturation rate is <65% (base case 78%). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that sAVF remained the optimal strategy in 71% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: EndoAVF is not cost effective compared with sAVF when modeling 5-year outcomes. The main driver of sAVF remaining cost effective is the four times higher up-front cost for endoAVF creation, as well as a relatively low additional increase in quality of life for endoAVF. It will be important to establish how the endoAVF learning curve contributes to upfront costs and, given the annual cost attributed to vascular access nationally, a randomized controlled trial is warranted.

Association between heart failure and arteriovenous access patency in patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Heart disease and chronic kidney disease are often comorbid conditions owing to shared risk factors, including diabetes and hypertension. However, the effect of congestive heart failure (CHF) on arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and AV graft (AVG) patency rates is poorly understood. We hypothesize preexisting HF may diminish blood flow to the developing AVF and worsen patency. METHODS: We conducted a single-institution retrospective review of 412 patients with end-stage renal disease who underwent hemodialysis access creation from 2015 to 2021. Patients were stratified based on presence of preexisting CHF, defined as clinical symptoms plus evidence of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (<50%) or diastolic dysfunction on preoperative echocardiography. Baseline demographics, preoperative measures of cardiac function, and dialysis access-related surgical history were collected. Kaplan-Meier time-to-event analyses were performed for primary patency, primary-assisted patency, and secondary patency using standard definitions for patency from the literature. We assessed differences in patency for patients with CHF vs patients without CHF, patients with a reduced vs a normal EF, and AVG vs AVF in patients with CHF. RESULTS: We included 204 patients (50%) with preexisting CHF with confirmatory echocardiography. Patients with CHF were more likely to be male and have comorbidities including, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and a history of cerebrovascular accident. The groups were not significantly different in terms of prior fistula history (P = .99), body mass index (P = .74), or type of hemodialysis access created (P = .54). There was no statistically significant difference in primary patency, primary-assisted patency, or secondary patency over time in the CHF vs non-CHF group (log-rank P > .05 for all three patency measures). When stratified by preoperative left ventricular EF, patients with an EF of <50% had lower primary (38% vs 51% at 1 year), primary-assisted (76% vs 82% at 1 year), and secondary patency (86% vs 93% at 1 year) rates than those with a normal EF. Difference reached significance for secondary patency only (log-rank P = .029). AVG patency was compared against AVF patency within the CHF subgroup, with significantly lower primary-assisted (39% vs 87% at 1 year) and secondary (62% vs 95%) patency rates for AVG (P < .0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In this 7-year experience of hemodialysis access creation, reduced EF is associated with lower secondary patency. Preoperative CHF (including HF with reduced EF and HF with preserved EF together) is not associated with significant differences in overall hemodialysis access patency rates over time, but patients with CHF who receive AVG have markedly worse patency than those who receive AVF. For patients with end-stage renal disease and CHF, the risks and benefits must be carefully weighed, particularly for those with low EF or lack of a suitable vein for fistula creation.