...
首页> 外文期刊>Renal failure. >Cephalic arch stenosis: angioplasty to preserve a brachiocephalic fistula or new brachiobasilic fistula?: a cost-effectiveness study
【24h】

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

机译:头足弓狭窄:血管成形术可保留臂头瘘或新的臂基底动脉瘘?:一项成本-效果研究

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

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.
机译:背景:我们的目的是评估有症状的头足弓狭窄(CAS)患者的重复血管成形术与新的臂基底动脉瘘(BBF)的成本效益。方法:出现症状性CAS(n≥22)的患者行血管成形术。将它们与进行BBF产生的患者进行比较(n≥51)。主要结局为3、6和12个月时功能性原发性动静脉瘘通畅。收集了有关介入次数,并发症的替代干预措施和住院天数的数据。使用肾脏疾病生活质量36分数评估生活质量。决策树,蒙特卡洛模拟和敏感性分析允许进行成本效用分析。医疗保健费用是根据卫生部的数据得出的,表示为每种治疗策略的费用(patient)/患者/年,保留的费用/获得的费用以及生活质量调整后的年份的费用/质量(QALY)。结果:重复血管成形术在3、6、12个月时功能性通畅率分别为87.5%,81%和43%,BBF分别为78%,63%和41%。血管成形术队列需要每名患者1.64±0.23血管成形术和0.64±0.34线/患者。 BBF需要每位患者0.36±±0.12血管成形术和每根患者1.2±±0.2线。由于访问相关的并发症,BBF队列中的患者每年在医院花费额外的0.9天。血管成形术组的平均成本/患者/年为£ 5247.72 /患者/年,而BBF组为£ 3807.55 /患者/年。每次访问节省的平均成本为11544.98英镑(血管成形术),而4979.10英镑(BBF)。每个QALY的平均成本为13,809.79英镑(血管成形术),而每个QALY的平均成本为10,878.72英镑(BBF)。结论:CAS带来了一个困难的管理问题,传统的血管成形术治疗效果差。最佳管理将取决于患者因素,局部结果和专业知识,但应考虑创建新的BBF作为管理该难题的经济有效的手段。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号