Feasibility of Creation of an Endovascular Arteriovenous Fistula in Patients Undergoing Preoperative Vascular Mapping

Anatomical Feasibility of Percutaneous Arteriovenous Fistula Formation in Korea

INTRODUCTION

Currently, there are two types of percutaneous arteriovenous fistula (pAVF) formation systems approved by the FDA: Ellipsys and WavelinQ. Although these systems are already in use in Europe or the United States, they have not been approved for use in Korea yet. For this reason, this study aimed to check anatomical feasibility of these systems for Korean population prior to their actual use.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who received ultrasound vein mapping for arteriovenous fistula formation from June 2021 to June 2022 were included. The anatomical feasibility of each system was confirmed according to the manufacturer's instructions for use (IFU).

RESULTS

Upper extremity ultrasonography was performed for a total of 83 patients to determine their feasibility for pAVF formation. Of these patients, 65.1% were feasible for pAVF formation with appropriate deep communicating vein (DCV) and outflow. Among them, 57.8% were feasible for the Ellipsys system and 54.2% were feasible for the WavelinQ system. Most patients who were infeasible for pAVF formation had a DCV of small size. Ulnar vessels were more suitable than radial vessel for WavelinQ (54.2% vs 33.7%, P-value = .012). The most common reason for not meeting the criteria was a small vein size at the access site.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of all patients were feasible for pAVF formation in this study. Ellipsys had a higher feasibility than WavelinQ, although they showed no significant difference in the feasibility. If these devices are imported into Korea, it will be a good opportunity for many patients to reduce the surgical burden and create AVFs more easily through these procedures.

Novel classification of proximal forearm perforator vein in the planning and creation of percutaneous and surgical Gracz-type arteriovenous fistulae

BACKGROUND

The perforator vein determines whether it is feasible to create a percutaneous (pAVF) or surgical "Gracz-type" arteriovenous fistula (sAVF). Creating a standard anatomic classification of the antecubital region is beneficial to both the selection of the appropriate device and/or procedure and technical outcomes. Accordingly, an analysis of a large cohort of patients undergoing pAVF/sAVF was performed, focusing on perforator vein anatomical suitability, and a novel anatomical classification of the antecubital region was developed and proposed.

METHODS

Between August 2018 and July 2022, chronic or end-stage kidney disease patients as well as patients anticipated an initiation of apheresis, who were referred for vascular access planning, underwent a standardized evaluation of upper extremities. A vessel mapping summary detailing the vasculature and the access creation plan was completed, indicating the anatomical suitability for sAVF and pAVF (Ellipsys and WavelinQ) techniques.

RESULTS

Of 524 patients, 36.5% were female (average age 65 years). 53.2% were on dialysis, 41.6% had diabetes, and 13.2% had a previously failed permanent dialysis access. The anatomy for successful pAVF creation was judged to be suitable in 54% of patients for an Ellipsys-pAVF, and 29.8% for WavelinQ-pAVF. Of the WavelinQ group, 54.4% had suitable anatomy for ulnar, 26.9% for radial, and 18.6% for both ulnar/radial anastomoses. Additionally, 60.7% had suitable anatomy for pAVF creation with at least one of the systems, while 22.5% were suited for both types of pAVF-systems. 80.3% were candidates for creation of a Gracz-AVF.

CONCLUSION

Overall, we found that about 60% of patients are likely candidates for a pAVF, with 80% being candidates for creation of a Gracz-AVF. Male patients have significantly higher suitability for most types of AVF creation, and younger patients are more suitable for Ellipsys-pAVF and RCAVFs. Most importantly, a universal classification of perforator vein was developed, which is indispensable in modern vascular access planning.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of endovascular vs surgical arteriovenous fistula creation in the United States

OBJECTIVE

In the United States, an estimated $2.8 billion annually is spent on vascular access and its complications. Endovascular arteriovenous fistula (endoAVF) creation is a novel, minimally invasive alternative to traditional surgical AV fistula (sAVF) creation in ≤60% of patients. Although cost effective in single-payer systems, the clinical and financial impact of endoAVF in the United States remains uncertain.

METHODS

We constructed a decision tree followed by a probabilistic cohort state-transition model to study the cost effectiveness of endoAVF vs sAVF creation. We conducted a systematic review to obtain input parameters including technical success, maturation, patency, and utility values. We derived costs from the Medicare 2022 fee schedule and from the literature. We used a 5-year time horizon, an annual discount rate of 3% for costs and utilities (measured in quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]), and the common willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000. One-way and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed varying technical success, patency, reintervention, cost, and utility parameters.

RESULTS

In the base-case scenario, endoAVF ($30,129 average per-person costs, 2.19 QALYs gained, 65% patent at 5 years) was not cost effective compared with sAVF ($12.987 average per-person costs, 2.11 QALYs gained, 66% patent at 5 years), generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $227,504 per QALY gained. In one-way sensitivity analyses, endoAVF becomes cost effective when the initial cost of sAVF creation exceeds endoAVF by ≥$600 (eg, if endoAVF creation costs ≤$3000 relative to the base-case sAVF cost of $3600), the additional QALYs gained from endoAVF exceeds 0.12 QALYs/year (eg, 0.81 QALYs gained/year from endoAVF compared with base-case sAVF 0.69 QALYs/year), the endoAVF maturation rate is >90% (base case 78%), or the sAVF maturation rate is <65% (base case 78%). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that sAVF remained the optimal strategy in 71% of iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

EndoAVF is not cost effective compared with sAVF when modeling 5-year outcomes. The main driver of sAVF remaining cost effective is the four times higher up-front cost for endoAVF creation, as well as a relatively low additional increase in quality of life for endoAVF. It will be important to establish how the endoAVF learning curve contributes to upfront costs and, given the annual cost attributed to vascular access nationally, a randomized controlled trial is warranted.