Costs Attributable to Arteriovenous Fistula and Arteriovenous Graft Placements in Hemodialysis Patients with Medicare coverage.

INTRODUCTION: Hemodialysis (HD) in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients requires vascular access (VA) through an arteriovenous fistula (AVF), a prosthetic arteriovenous graft (AVG), or a central venous catheter. While AVF or AVG is commonly used for HD, the economic implications of AVF versus AVG use have not been fully established. We describe the healthcare resource utilization and costs of AVF and AVG use for incident ESRD patients in the United States. METHODS: This observational cohort study of AVF and AVG placements used data from the United States Renal Data System to identify and follow access placements. AVF and AVG placements after ESRD onset for incident patients from 2012 to 2014 with continuous Medicare primary coverage were included. All-cause and access-related Medicare costs were averaged over the placement lifetime and expressed as per dialysis-month costs. RESULTS: The analysis included 38,035 AVF placements and 12,789 AVG placements. Total all-cause monthly costs for AVF averaged USD 8,508; mean monthly costs were USD 3,027 for inpatient (IP), USD 3,139 for outpatient (OP), USD 1,572 for physician services, and USD 770 for other care settings. Access-related monthly costs averaged USD 1,699 and represented 20% of all-cause charges for AVFs. Mean all-cause monthly costs for AVG were USD 9,605; by setting monthly costs were USD 3,811 for IP, USD 3,034 for OP, USD 1,881 for physician services and USD 879 for other care settings. Access-related monthly costs averaged USD 2,656 and represented 28% of all-cause charges for AVGs. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that costs due to VA are a significant burden on Medicare budgets and on patients. The factors driving access-related utilization and costs merit attention in future research. Both optimizing process of care and discovery innovation may significantly accelerate better stewardship of available healthcare resources.

Cost analysis of ongoing care of patients with end-stage renal disease: the impact of dialysis modality and dialysis access.

BACKGROUND: Care of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is important and resource intense. To enable ESRD programs to develop strategies for more cost-efficient care, an accurate estimate of the cost of caring for patients with ESRD is needed. METHODS: The objective of our study is to develop an updated and accurate itemized description of costs and resources required to treat patients with ESRD on dialysis therapy and contrast differences in resources required for various dialysis modalities. One hundred sixty-six patients who had been on dialysis therapy for longer than 6 months and agreed to enrollment were followed up prospectively for 1 year. Detailed information on baseline patient characteristics, including comorbidity, was collected. Costs considered included those related to outpatient dialysis care, inpatient care, outpatient nondialysis care, and physician claims. We also estimated separately the cost of maintaining the dialysis access. RESULTS: Overall annual cost of care for in-center, satellite, and home/self-care hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis were US $51,252 (95% confidence interval [CI], 47,680 to 54,824), $42,057 (95% CI, 39,523 to 44,592), $29,961 (95% CI, 21,252 to 38,670), and $26,959 (95% CI, 23,500 to 30,416), respectively (P < 0.001). After adjustment for the effect of other important predictors of cost, such as comorbidity, these differences persisted. Among patients treated with hemodialysis, the cost of vascular access-related care was lower by more than fivefold for patients who began the study period with a functioning native arteriovenous fistula compared with those treated with a permanent catheter or synthetic graft (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: To maximize the efficiency with which care is provided to patients with ESRD, dialysis programs should encourage the use of home/self-care hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis.

Endovascular versus surgical treatment for thrombosed hemodialysis grafts: A prospective, randomized study.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to compare clinical outcome and costs for two widely used treatment strategies for hemodialysis graft thrombosis. METHODS: During a 4-year period, 80 patients with thrombosed dialysis grafts were randomly assigned to surgical thrombectomy with or without graft revision (SURG) or thrombolytic therapy with urokinase with the pulse-spray technique (ENDO), with adjunctive percutaneous transluminal angioplasty as indicated. All the procedures were performed in an endovascular operating suite with fistulography. The clinical and cost data were tabulated, and the outcome was analyzed with the life-table method. RESULTS: Fifty-six women and 24 men ranged in age from 33 to 90 years (mean, 63.7 years). The patients had undergone a mean of 2.8 prior access procedures in the ipsilateral extremity. All the grafts were upper extremity expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. Lesions that were presumed to be the primary cause of graft thrombosis were identified in 73 of 80 grafts, and 60 of these were at the venous anastomosis. The procedure time averaged 99 minutes for the patients in the SURG group and 113 minutes for the patients in the ENDO group (P =.12). Eleven patients in the ENDO group crossed over to surgical revision as compared with two patients in the SURG group who required adjunctive percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (P =.005). The mean cost of treatment (including room and supply costs but not professional fees) was significantly higher for the ENDO group than for the SURG group ($2945 vs $1512; P <.001). There were no procedure-related complications in either group. At a median follow-up time of 24 months, there was no difference in primary or assisted primary patency between groups, which averaged 6 and 7 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although thrombolytic therapy combined with endovascular treatment can extend the life of dialysis grafts with results similar to surgical revision, there is a high rate of technical failure necessitating surgery and a substantially higher cost for thrombolysis.

Use of a collagen hemostatic closure device to achieve hemostasis after arterial puncture: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether a collagen hemostatic closure device is a safe, cost-effective alternative to manual compression for achieving hemostasis at arterial puncture sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis, based on a meta-analysis of published data, was performed from the perspective of the health-care system. The gain in effectiveness was expressed as the decrease in rate of puncture-site complications that required treatment. Costs associated with achieving hemostasis and treating complications were included. RESULTS: Use of a collagen closure device decreased the number of puncture-site complications from 31:1,000 to 16:1,000. The average cost of using the device was $177 per patient compared with $42 per patient for manual compression. The incremental cost of averting one complication exceeded $9,000. CONCLUSION: Use of a collagen closure device to achieve hemostasis after an arterial puncture may reduce the complication rate, but the additional cost per complication averted is very high.