Optimising Access Surgery in Senior Haemodialysis Patients (OASIS): study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Current evidence on vascular access strategies for haemodialysis patients is based on observational studies that are at high risk of selection bias. For elderly patients, autologous arteriovenous fistulas that are typically created in usual care may not be the best option because a significant proportion of fistulas either fail to mature or remain unused. In addition, long-term complications associated with arteriovenous grafts and central venous catheters may be less relevant when considering the limited life expectancy of these patients. Therefore, we designed the Optimising Access Surgery in Senior Haemodialysis Patients (OASIS) trial to determine the best strategy for vascular access creation in elderly haemodialysis patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: OASIS is a multicentre randomised controlled trial with an equal participant allocation in three treatment arms. Patients aged 70 years or older who are expected to initiate haemodialysis treatment in the next 6 months or who have started haemodialysis urgently with a catheter will be enrolled. To detect and exclude patients with an unusually long life expectancy, we will use a previously published mortality prediction model after external validation. Participants allocated to the usual care arm will be treated according to current guidelines on vascular access creation and will undergo fistula creation. Participants allocated to one of the two intervention arms will undergo graft placement or catheter insertion. The primary outcome is the number of access-related interventions required for each patient-year of haemodialysis treatment. We will enrol 195 patients to have sufficient statistical power to detect an absolute decrease of 0.80 interventions per year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Because of clinical equipoise, we believe it is justified to randomly allocate elderly patients to the different vascular access strategies. The study was approved by an accredited medical ethics review committee. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and will be implemented in clinical practice guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL7933. PROTOCOL VERSION AND DATE: V.5, 25 February 2021.

Varying Opinions on Who Deserves Collectively Financed Health Care Services: A Discrete Choice Experiment on Allocation Preferences of the General Public.

In Europe, health insurance arrangements are under reform. These arrangements redistribute collectively financed resources to ensure access to health care for all. Allocation of health services is historically based on medical needs, but use of other criteria, such as lifestyle, is debated upon. Does the general public also have preferences for conditional allocation? This depends on their opinions regarding deservingness. The aim of this study was to gain insight in those opinions, specifically by examining the perceived weight of different criteria in allocation decisions. Based on literature and expert interviews, we included 5 criteria in a discrete choice experiment: need, financial capacity, lifestyle, cooperation with treatment, and package/premium choice. A representative sample of the Dutch population was invited to participate (n = 10 760). A total of 774 people accessed the questionnaire (7.2%), of whom 375 completed it (48.4%). Medical need was overall the most important criterion in determining deservingness (range ß = 1.60). Perceived deservingness decreased if claimants had higher financial capacity (1.26) and unhealthier lifestyle (1.04), if their cooperation was less optimal (1.05), or if they had opted for less insurance coverage (0.56). However, preferences vary among respondents, in relation to demographic and ideological factors.