The Effect of Risk of Maturation Failure and Access Type on Arteriovenous Access-Related Costs among Hemodialysis Patients

What are the reported procedural costs of vascular access surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Since the inception of arteriovenous grafts (AVG) as a novel technique, there has been greater emphasis on the assessment of outcomes rather than costs. Gross-costing methods over-simplify vascular access surgery and do not reflect the true costs of the service, preventing accurate cost-effectiveness analysis. The aim of this study is to assess the reporting of procedural costs of arteriovenous access creation in economic analyses of vascular access surgery, and to compare the reported costs of the two most performed procedures - arteriovenous fistula (AVF) and arteriovenous graft (AVG).

METHODS

This systematic review included studies reporting a per-procedure cost for AVF or AVG creation. Costs were adjusted from original to target price year using a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflator index and converted to 2021 US Dollars using conversion rates based on purchasing power parities.

RESULTS

The results demonstrate wide discrepancy in the reported procedural costs of arteriovenous access creation. Most of the data represents retrospectively observed costs rather than prospective data collected on an intention-to-treat basis. Charges are frequently presented in lieu of costs, and aggregated gross-costing methodology predominates rather than more accurate micro-costing.

CONCLUSION

Future micro-costing studies of vascular access surgery are essential to allow a greater understanding of cost-drivers and allow accurate cost-effectiveness analysis.

Comparing post-maturation outcomes of arteriovenous grafts and fistulae

BACKGROUND

Though arteriovenous grafts (AVG) mature more reliably than arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) and require fewer maturation procedures (MP) to obtain functional patency, AVG are thought to have worse function after maturation. We explored differences in post-maturation outcomes between the following groups: AVF patients who did (AS-AVF) and did not (unAS-AVF) require assisted maturation and AVG patients who did (AS-AVG) and did not (unAS-AVG) require assisted maturation.

METHODS

Using the US Renal Data System (2012-2017), we retrospectively identified patients who initiated dialysis with a central venous catheter, underwent AVF or AVG placement and achieved successful two-needle cannulation. Primary patency and access abandonment after maturation were compared across groups using competing risks regression methods, generating sub-hazards ratios (sHR).

RESULTS

We identified 42,664 AVF and 12,335 AVG that met inclusion criteria. A larger proportion of AVFs required interventions: 18,408 AVF (43.2%) versus 2594 AVG (21.0%; p < 0.01). Both AS-AVG and AS-AVF patients experienced patency loss at 1 year more frequently compared with unAS-AVG (67.5% & 57.5% vs 55.2% respectively). Patency loss was lowest in unAS-AVF (38.9%). These trends were robust on adjusted analysis (unAS-AVG reference, AS-AVG sHR = 1.44, p < 0.01; AS-AVF sHR = 1.08, p < 0.01, unAS-AVF sHR = 0.67, p < 0.01). AS-AVGs were more likely to be abandoned than unAS-AVGs (11.7% unAS-AVG vs 17.2% AS-AVG). Fistulae, assisted or not, had lower unadjusted rates of 1-year abandonment than grafts (8.9% AS-AVF vs 7.3% unAS-AVF). On adjusted analysis, AVF usage was protective against abandonment (unAS-AVG, reference; AS-AVF sHR = 0.67, p < 0.01; unAS-AVF sHR = 0.59, p < 0.01) while AS-AVG was not (AS-AVG sHR = 1.32, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

unAS-AVF have the best long-term outcomes. AS-AVF lose primary patency at a higher rate than unAS-AVG. AVGs may be a better choice than AVFs if veins are marginal and likely to require assisted maturation. Further research is needed to identify anatomic and physiologic factors that affect long-term performance and influence conduit choice.

Immuno-regenerative biomaterials for in situ cardiovascular tissue engineering - Do patient characteristics warrant precision engineering?

In situ tissue engineering using bioresorbable material implants - or scaffolds - that harness the patient's immune response while guiding neotissue formation at the site of implantation is emerging as a novel therapy to regenerate human tissues. For the cardiovascular system, the use of such implants, like blood vessels and heart valves, is gradually entering the stage of clinical translation. This opens up the question if and to what extent patient characteristics influence tissue outcomes, necessitating the precision engineering of scaffolds to guide patient-specific neo-tissue formation. Because of the current scarcity of human in vivo data, herein we review and evaluate in vitro and preclinical investigations to predict the potential role of patient-specific parameters like sex, age, ethnicity, hemodynamics, and a multifactorial disease profile, with special emphasis on their contribution to the inflammation-driven processes of in situ tissue engineering. We conclude that patient-specific conditions have a strong impact on key aspects of in situ cardiovascular tissue engineering, including inflammation, hemodynamic conditions, scaffold resorption, and tissue remodeling capacity, suggesting that a tailored approach may be required to engineer immuno-regenerative biomaterials for safe and predictive clinical applicability.