Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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

  • Abhisekh Mohapatra
  • , Theodore H. Yuo
  • , Mikayla N. Lowenkamp
  • , Jason K. Wagner
  • , Ellen D. Dillavou
  • , Rabih A. Chaer
  • , Efthymios D. Avgerinos
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • Duke University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)581-587
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume73
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2021

Keywords

  • Cost-effectiveness analysis
  • Early cannulation arteriovenous graft
  • Hemodialysis access
  • Immediate-access arteriovenous graft

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-effectiveness analysis of immediate access arteriovenous grafts versus standard grafts for hemodialysis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this