Cephalic arch stenosis: angioplasty to preserve a brachiocephalic fistula or new brachiobasilic fistula?: a cost-effectiveness study

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repeat angioplasty versus new brachiobasilic fistula (BBF) in patients with symptomatic cephalic arch stenosis (CAS). METHODS: Patients presenting with symptomatic CAS (n = 22) underwent angioplasty. They were compared to patients undergoing BBF creation (n = 51). Primary outcomes were functional primary arteriovenous fistulae patency at 3, 6 and 12 months. Data were collected on number of interventions, alternative accesses and hospital days for access-related complications. Quality of life was assessed using Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 scores. Decision tree, Monte Carlo simulation and sensitivity analysis permitted cost-utility analysis. Healthcare costs were derived from Department of Health figures and are presented as cost (£)/patient/year, cost/access preserved and cost/quality of life-adjusted year (QALY) for each of the treatment strategies. RESULTS: Functional primary patency rates at 3, 6, 12 months were 87.5%, 81% and 43% for repeated angioplasty and 78%, 63% and 41% for BBF. The angioplasty cohort required 1.64 ± 0.23 angioplasties/patient and 0.64 ± 0.34 lines/patient. BBF required 0.36 ± 0.12 angioplasties/patient and 1.2 ± 0.2 lines/patient. Patients in the BBF cohort spent an additional 0.9 days/year in hospital due to access-related complications. Mean cost/patient/year in the angioplasty group was £5247.72/patient/year versus £3807.55/patient/year in the BBF cohort. Mean cost per access saved was £11,544.98 (angioplasty) versus £4979.10 (BBF). Average cost per QALY was £13,809.79 (angioplasty) versus £10,878.72 per QALY (BBF). CONCLUSIONS: CAS poses a difficult management problem with poor outcomes from conventional angioplasty. Optimal management will depend on patient factors, local outcomes and expertise, but consideration should be given to creation of a new BBF as a cost-effective means to manage this difficult problem.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.