Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (cPTA) in patients with arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) dysfunction from a Singapore healthcare perspective.

Methods

Existing cost-effectiveness studies comparing DCB and cPTA have not incorporated AVF/AVG abandonment costs. This Markov model-based economic evaluation incorporated AVF/AVG creation and maturation costs on top of routine intervention costs to model a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old AVF/AVG flow dysfunction patients. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) at a Singapore willingness-to-pay threshold of Singapore dollar (S$)87 000. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine parameter uncertainty. To test hypotheses regarding cost-effectiveness, intervention counts per patient, cumulative incidence functions of AVF/AVG abandonment, and survival curves of death were compared between DCB and cPTA.

Results

DCB was not cost-effective at 3-year horizon (NMB = −S$1424), but was cost-effective at 1- and 6-year horizons (NMB = S$356 and S$3738, respectively). At 3 years, there was a 34.5% probability of DCB being cost-effective, but at 1- and 6-year horizons there was, respectively, 58.6% and 59.9% probability of DCB being cost-effective. DCB had graphically less AVF/AVG-abandonments, but this was not statistically significant (P = .21). Differences in other parameters were neither graphically nor statistically significant.

Conclusions

With AVF/AVG abandonment considered, DCB may be weakly cost-effective compared with cPTA in treating AVF/AVG flow dysfunction. AV access creation and maturation costs could have important explanatory value in assessing DCB cost-effectiveness.