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

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.     

Cardiac rehabilitation and its effects on cognition in patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure

Introduction: Cardiac rehabilitation program is an evidence-based intervention and established model of exercise delivery following myocardial infarction and heart failure. Although it forms an important part of recovery and helps to prevent future events and complications, there has been little focus on its potential cognitive benefits.

Areas covered: Coronary artery disease and heart failure are common heart problems associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and cognitive decline is commonly seen in affected individuals. Cognitive impairment may influence patient self-management by reducing medication adherence, rendering patients unable to make lifestyle modifications and causing missed healthcare visits. Cognitive assessment in cardiac rehabilitation as an outcome measure has the potential to improve clinical, functional and behavioral domains as well as help to reduce gaps in the quality of care in these patients.

Expert commentary: Limited evidence at present has shown that cardiac rehabilitation and exercise has potential in preventing cognitive decline. Cardiac prehabilitation, a rehabilitation-like program delivered before cardiac surgery, may also play a role in preventing postoperative cognitive dysfunction, but needs future research studies to support it.     

Complex relationship of obesity and obesity paradox in heart failure – higher risk of developing heart failure and better outcomes in established heart failure

Heart failure (HF) and obesity are major public health problems. Studies have shown that obesity may increase the risk of developing new HF but after patients have developed HF, obesity may be associated with improved outcomes. This paradoxical association of obesity with HF remains poorly understood. It is believed that the obesity paradox may in part be due to the inherent limitations of body mass index (BMI) as a measure of obesity. BMI may not appropriately measure important components of body mass like body fat, fat distribution, lean body mass, and body fluid content and may not be ideal for examining the relationship of body composition with health outcomes. Differentiating between body fat and lean body mass may explain some of the paradoxical association between higher BMI and better prognosis in patients with HF. Paradoxical outcomes in HF may also be due to phenotypes of obesity. Future studies need to develop and test metrics that may better measure body composition and may serve as a better tool for the estimation of the true association of obesity and outcomes in HF and determine whether the association may vary by obesity phenotypes.

• KEY MESSAGES

• Obesity predisposes to heart failure in all age groups. But obesity in heart failure is an area of controversy, because of obesity paradox, the apparent protective effect of overweight and mild obesity on mortality after development of heart failure.

• Traditional markers of obesity do not measure different components of body weight like muscle mass, fat, water, and skeletal weight. Body Mass Index in heart failure subjects does not measure accurately body fat or fluid retention. So new markers of obesity like visceral adiposity index, body composition analysis, sarcopenic status assessment may be helpful in the assessment of heart failure outcomes.

• Different phenotypes of obesity may be responsible for the different morbidity, mortality as well as therapeutic outcomes in heart failure.

     

Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT): a practical guide to management

Open in a separate window