File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Cost-effectiveness analysis of autogenous arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and tunneled-cuffed catheter for hemodialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease in Southern China

TitleCost-effectiveness analysis of autogenous arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and tunneled-cuffed catheter for hemodialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease in Southern China
Authors
Keywordscost-effectiveness analysis
End-stage
EuroQol (EQ-5D)
hemodialysis
renal disease
vascular access
Issue Date2022
Citation
Journal of Vascular Access, 2022 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three permanent vascular accesses for maintenance hemodialysis patients from a hospital perspective throughout 5 years, which is the average life expectancy of patients with end-stage kidney disease. Subjects and methods: We conducted a EuroQol(EQ-5D) questionnaire survey between January 2021 and March 2021 with 250 patients to estimate the health utility of various states in patients under different hemodialysis vascular access. We designed a Markov model and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the cost-effectiveness of three hemodialysis vascular access in Guangzhou throughout 5 years. Results: The mean costs were US$44,481 with tunneled-cuffed catheter (TCC), and US$68,952 and US$59,247 with arteriovenous graft (AVG) and autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF), respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was 1.41 with TCC, and 2.37 and 2.73 with AVG and AVF, respectively. AVG had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$25,491 per QALY over TCC; AVF had an ICER of -US$26,958 per QALY over AVG. At a willingness to pay below US$10,633.8 per QALY, TCC is likely the most cost-effective vascular access. At any willingness to pay between US$10,633.8 and US$30,901.4 per QALY, AVF is likely the most cost-effective vascular access. Conclusion: These findings illustrate the value of AVF given its relative cost-effectiveness to other hemodialysis modalities. Although AVG costs much more than TCC for slightly higher QALYs than TCC, AVG still has a greater advantage over TCC for patients with longer life expectancy due to its lower probability of death.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/330885
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 1.6
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.463
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorWong, Tak Sui-
dc.contributor.authorChen, Qian-
dc.contributor.authorZhong, Qiongqiong-
dc.contributor.authorHu, Bo-
dc.contributor.authorFeng, Guanrui-
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Fengqiu-
dc.contributor.authorLu, Jian-
dc.contributor.authorYin, Lianghong-
dc.contributor.authorYu, Zongchao-
dc.contributor.authorAkinwunmi, Babatunde O.-
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Jian-
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Casper J.P.-
dc.contributor.authorMing, Wai Kit-
dc.date.accessioned2023-09-05T12:15:35Z-
dc.date.available2023-09-05T12:15:35Z-
dc.date.issued2022-
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Vascular Access, 2022-
dc.identifier.issn1129-7298-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/330885-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of three permanent vascular accesses for maintenance hemodialysis patients from a hospital perspective throughout 5 years, which is the average life expectancy of patients with end-stage kidney disease. Subjects and methods: We conducted a EuroQol(EQ-5D) questionnaire survey between January 2021 and March 2021 with 250 patients to estimate the health utility of various states in patients under different hemodialysis vascular access. We designed a Markov model and conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the cost-effectiveness of three hemodialysis vascular access in Guangzhou throughout 5 years. Results: The mean costs were US$44,481 with tunneled-cuffed catheter (TCC), and US$68,952 and US$59,247 with arteriovenous graft (AVG) and autogenous arteriovenous fistula (AVF), respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was 1.41 with TCC, and 2.37 and 2.73 with AVG and AVF, respectively. AVG had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$25,491 per QALY over TCC; AVF had an ICER of -US$26,958 per QALY over AVG. At a willingness to pay below US$10,633.8 per QALY, TCC is likely the most cost-effective vascular access. At any willingness to pay between US$10,633.8 and US$30,901.4 per QALY, AVF is likely the most cost-effective vascular access. Conclusion: These findings illustrate the value of AVF given its relative cost-effectiveness to other hemodialysis modalities. Although AVG costs much more than TCC for slightly higher QALYs than TCC, AVG still has a greater advantage over TCC for patients with longer life expectancy due to its lower probability of death.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Vascular Access-
dc.subjectcost-effectiveness analysis-
dc.subjectEnd-stage-
dc.subjectEuroQol (EQ-5D)-
dc.subjecthemodialysis-
dc.subjectrenal disease-
dc.subjectvascular access-
dc.titleCost-effectiveness analysis of autogenous arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and tunneled-cuffed catheter for hemodialysis in patients with end-stage kidney disease in Southern China-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/11297298221143010-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85144406608-
dc.identifier.eissn1724-6032-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000901470700001-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats