IN.PACT AV Access Trial: Economic Evaluation of Drug-Coated Balloon Treatment for Dysfunctional Arteriovenous Fistulae Based on 12-Month Clinical Outcomes

PurposeTo study, from a U.S. payer’s perspective, the economic consequences of drug-coated balloon (DCB) versus standard percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) use for the treatment of stenotic lesions in dysfunctional hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulae.Materials and MethodsCost differences between DCBs and PTA at year 1 and beyond were calculated via 2 methods. The first approach used the mean absolute number of trial-observed access circuit reinterventions through 12 months (0.65 ± 1.05 vs 1.05 ± 1.18 events per patient for DCBs and PTA, respectively) and projected treatment outcomes to 3 years. The second approach was based on the trial-observed access circuit primary patency rates at 12 months (53.8% vs 32.4%) and calculated the cost difference on the basis of previously published Medicare cost for patients who maintained or did not maintain primary patency. Assumptions regarding DCB device prices were tested in sensitivity analyses, and the numbers needed to treat were calculated.ResultsUsing the absolute number of access circuit reinterventions approach, the DCB strategy resulted in an estimated per-patient savings of $1,632 at 1 year and $4,263 at 3 years before considering the DCB device cost. The access circuit primary patency approach was associated with a per-patient cost savings of $2,152 at 1 year and $3,894 at 2.5 years of follow-up. At the theoretical DCB device reimbursement of $1,800, savings were $1,680 and $2,049 at 2.5 and 3 years, respectively. The one-year NNT of DCB compared to PTA was 2.48.ConclusionsEndovascular therapy for arteriovenous access stenosis with the IN.PACT AV DCB can be expected to be cost-saving if longer follow-up data confirm its clinical effectiveness.