Medico-economic Evaluation of the Creation of Arteriovenous Access for Hemodialysis Between Surgical Technique and Endovascular Technique in Patients with End-stage Renal Disease
- Conditions
- Endovascular ProcedureHemodialysis
- Registration Number
- NCT06679907
- Lead Sponsor
- University Hospital, Bordeaux
- Brief Summary
This multicenter 1 :1 randomized controlled trial aims at comparing the cost-effectiveness of endovascular arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation using Ellipsys® and WaveLinQ® devices with traditional surgical AVF creation for hemodialysis. The primary endpoint is the cost-utility ratio (cost per QALY gained), with an anticipated sample size of 252 patients. This study will provide critical insights into the viability and cost-effectiveness of endovascular techniques, potentially shaping future standards of care in hemodialysis access.
- Detailed Description
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global public health issue, affecting approximately 10% of the population.1,2 The number of patients starting renal replacement therapy has grown exponentially in recent years.3 Effective hemodialysis relies on a well-functioning vascular access (VA). The Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI)4, the French Health Authority (HAS)5, and the European Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (ESVS)6 recommend native arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) as a primary option, referring to their lower morbidity, reduced mortality, and improved quality of life.7,8 An ideal AVF should allow cannulation with two needles, provide a blood flow of 300 to 600ml/min, resist infection and thrombosis, and have minimal adverse events.6 Between 2005 and 2007, 67-91% of patients in France used native AVFs.7 Data from the Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (DOPPS) showed that AVF maturation varies significantly by country, patient and center characteristics. In Japan, 84% of AVFs were created in the forearm, compared to 54% in EUR/ANZ (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand), and 32% in the United States (US).9 Catheter-dependence following AVF creation remained high in EUR/ANZ and US patients, with nearly 70% still dependent 8 months after AVF creation. Failure to use AVFs within 6 months was associated to a 53% higher mortality rate in the following 6 months.9 A systematic review and meta-analysis of 318 studies10 reported that average AVF primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates at one year were 64%, 73% and 79%, respectively. However, not all patent AVFs were suitable for dialysis: only 26% were mature at 6 months, and 21% were abandoned without ever being used.
Furthermore, up to 85% of AVFs require multiple re-interventions, including angioplasty, stenting, transposition, thrombectomy or thrombolysis within the first year.11-13 On average, up to 3.43 reinterventions per patient were required over the study duration, with higher rates for brachio-basilic accesses, contributing significantly to the overall cost of care.11-13 To improve outcomes, endovascular AVF creation techniques have been developed.14 These methods use radiofrequency or thermo-coagulation energy, guided by fluoroscopy and/or duplex ultrasound. Avoiding vessel dissection and mobilization, while minimizing trauma to the vascular wall and surrounding tissues, may help reduce the risk of intimal hyperplasia and AVF failure. This approach could lead to similar benefits as those demonstrated by surgical no-touch techniques.15 Preliminary results show a technical success rate of 97.5%, a 3-month maturation rate of 89.3%, a 1-year patency rate of 85.7%, and an average of 0.59 reinterventions per patient per year.16-19 As a results, data from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS) were compared to data from the Novel Endovascular Access Trial (NEAT) and both incident and prevalent patients with endoAVF required fewer interventions and had lower costs within the first year compared with matched patients with surgical AVFs.20 However, these devices are expensive (approximately €5,200 per patient) and the creation of an endovenous fistula is not yet listed in France's common classification of medical procedures (CCAM), making it ineligible for reimbursement by health insurance.21,22 In 2019, there were 15,653 hospitalizations in France for AVF creation and re-interventions to aid AVF maturation or restore patency in patients with end-stage renal disease. Although international studies suggest that endovascular AVF creation is effective,18,20,23 no French studies have yet replicated or confirmed these findings in the local context to support reimbursement claims. The 2018 ESVS guidelines also cite a lack of evidence on endovascular AVF creation.6 This protocol represents the first French medico-economic study to compare the two available endovascular AVF creation devices - Ellipsys® (Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) and WaveLinQ® (BD, Bard, Franklin Lakes, New Jersey, United States of America) - with traditional open surgery. This randomized clinical trial aims to provide crucial data for healthcare decision-makers, potentially paving the way for the adoption of these devices in France, enhancing patient care, and improving quality of life.
Recruitment & Eligibility
- Status
- NOT_YET_RECRUITING
- Sex
- All
- Target Recruitment
- 252
Patients:
- Age> 18 years
- On chronic dialysis, or due to start chronic dialysis within 3 to 6 months
- Patient eligible for the creation of a native surgical AVF at the elbow crease and an endovenous AVF according to the instructions for use of the manufacturers of the two devices used, namely:
- Target venous diameter for fistula creation > or = 3 mm
- Target arterial diameter for fistula creation > or = 2 mm
- Artery to vein distance < or = 1.5mm
- At least one superficial outflow vein with a diameter ≥ 2.5 mm connected via a proximal forearm perforating vein with the target site
- Patency of the radial and ulnar arteries confirmed by Doppler ultrasound
- Presence of a connecting perforator between the deep and superficial venous network, relatively straight anatomy
- Distance between proximal radial artery and perforator junction/radial vein < 1.5mm
- Patient having been clearly informed about the study and having agreed to participate and attend follow-up visits
- Patient affiliated or beneficiary of a social security scheme.
- Known central venous stenosis > 50% on imaging or presence of an indwelling central venous catheter or pacemaker on the same side as the side of creation of the AVF
- Upper extremity arterial occlusive disease not amenable to endovascular or open repair
- Eligibility for a native distal AVF (radio or ulno-cephalic)
- New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III or IV heart failure
- Hypercoagulable state
- Estimated life expectancy <1 year
- Pregnantly or breastfeeding woman
- Known allergies to medical devices and medications used in the protocol
- Inability to collect consent
- Patient not affiliated to a social security scheme
Study & Design
- Study Type
- INTERVENTIONAL
- Study Design
- PARALLEL
- Primary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Cost-utility differential ratio (expressed as cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year [QALY]) with endovascular AVF vs. open surgery month 18 This measure evaluates the cost-utility ratio by calculating the cost per QALY gained with the creation of an endovascular AVF using WaveLinQ® or Ellipsys® devices compared to an open surgical approach at 18 months. The assessment includes initial hospitalization costs via micro-costing and outpatient costs derived from the National Health Data System (SNDS) and evaluates utility using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire.
- Secondary Outcome Measures
Name Time Method Evaluation of total cost of care for endovascular Month 36 This measure evaluates the total cost of care for endovascular AVF compared to surgical AVF creation at 18 and 36 months from the perspective of Mandatory Health Insurance.
Real costs of initial hospitalization for endovascular AVF vs. surgical AVF creation Day 0 This measure compares the real costs associated with the initial hospitalization for endovascular versus surgical AVF creation procedures.
Evaluation of total cost of care for surgical AVF creation Month 36 This measure evaluates the total cost of care for endovascular AVF compared to surgical AVF creation at 18 and 36 months from the perspective of Mandatory Health Insurance.
Evaluation of cost functional AVF without reintervention Month 36 This measure assesses the cost-effectiveness ratio as the cost per additional functional AVF without the need for reintervention at 36 months for WaveLinQ® or Ellipsys® devices compared to open surgery.
Evaluation of cost with adoption of endovascular AVF 5 years Cost differences for health insurance over 5 years based on the adoption of endovascular techniques for AVF creation in patients requiring hemodialysis within 3-6 months or those already on dialysis in France. Data linkage between the clinical trial and the SNDS database will be performed through indirect matching using: age, postal code of residence, gender, date of hospital discharge, Diagnosis-Related Group Discharge Summary Code (GHM RSS), principal diagnosis of the stay, associated diagnoses, related diagnosis, stay number (NDA). Matching will enable continued follow-up without additional data collection, relying solely on SNIIRAM and PMSI data ensuring comprehensive tracking of AVF-related events across different care settings. Social determinants of health such as education, access to healthcare, housing stability, and socioeconomic status, will also be searched for to assess their po
Evaluation of frequency of reinterventions for vascular access Month 36 This measure calculates the frequency of reinterventions, including angioplasties, thrombectomies, AVF repairs, and new AVF creations, for each type of AVF creation. Data is derived from the French National Hospital Discharge Database (PMSI) and the French National Health Insurance Inter-Scheme Information System (SNIIRAM), with healthcare costs estimated from the SNDS.
Number of AVF creation success Day 0 This clinical endpoint measures the success rate of AVF creation. AVF creation success will be determined by the presence of a palpable "thrill" and/or confirmation of patency via immediate postoperative duplex scan.
Number of mature AVFs Month 18 This measure includes the proportion of AVFs that reach maturity and the time required for each AVF to mature, assessed at specific intervals. For dialysis patients, AVFs maturity will be defined as a vascular access allowing cannulation with two needles and providing adequate blood flow throughout hemodialysis. In pre-dialysis patients, maturity will be indicated by a pre-anastomotic humeral artery blood flow of at least 400 mL/min and an AVF diameter of at least 4 mm. AVF maturation time will be defined as the number of days between AVF creation and physiological maturation.
Evaluation of time to maturation Month 12 This measure includes the proportion of AVFs that reach maturity and the time required for each AVF to mature, assessed at specific intervals. For dialysis patients, AVFs maturity will be defined as a vascular access allowing cannulation with two needles and providing adequate blood flow throughout hemodialysis. In pre-dialysis patients, maturity will be indicated by a pre-anastomotic humeral artery blood flow of at least 400 mL/min and an AVF diameter of at least 4 mm. AVF maturation time will be defined as the number of days between AVF creation and physiological maturation.
Number of Functional AVFs Month 18 This measure evaluates the proportion of functional AVFs and assesses the recirculation rate, indicating access efficiency. AVFs functionality will be defined as a VA allowing successful cannulation with two needles over at least six hemodialysis sessions within 30 days, delivering satisfactory blood flow and achieving adequate dialysis (typically a minimum of 300 mL/min).
Number of recirculation Month 18 This measure evaluates the proportion of functional AVFs and assesses the recirculation rate, indicating access efficiency. The recirculation rate will refer to the percentage of dialyzed blood that re-enters the systemic circulation without complete clearance.
Number of days hospitalised for AVF creation Day 15 This measure records the average length of stay, in days, for initial hospitalization associated with AVF creation.
Number of adverse events related to vascular access Month 18 his measure monitors complications arising from vascular access, including limb ischemia (steal syndrome), monomelic ischemic neuropathy, high-flow conditions (blood flow \> 1500 mL/min with cardiac consequences), aneurysms, hemorrhages, skin necrosis, infections, thrombosis, and AVF abandonment, with ischemia severity classified into four stages ranging from mild coldness and numbness (stage 1) to tissue loss affecting the extremities (stage 4)
Number of serious adverse events related to AVF device Month 36 This measure tracks serious adverse events directly related to the AVF device.
Number of Reinterventions related to AVF device Month 36 This measure tracks early reinterventions (within 1 month) and late reinterventions (after 1 month) such as angioplasties, thrombectomies, AVF repairs, and new AVF creations.
Trial Locations
- Locations (11)
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux
🇫🇷Bordeaux, France
Polyclinique Bordeaux Nord Aquitaine - Centre Aquitain des pathologies vasculaire
🇫🇷Bordeaux, France
AP-HP Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Ambroise Paré
🇫🇷Boulogne-billancourt, France
Clinique du parc
🇫🇷Castelnau-le-Lez, France
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon - Hôpital le Bocage
🇫🇷Dijon, France
Centre Hospitalier Mutualiste de Grenoble
🇫🇷Grenoble, France
Hôpital privé Jean Mermoz
🇫🇷Lyon, France
Centre Hospitalier St Joseph - St Luc
🇫🇷Lyon, France
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice - Hôpital Pasteur 1
🇫🇷Nice, France
Groupe Hospitalier Paris St Joseph - Centre Hospitalier Chartres
🇫🇷Paris, France
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes - Hôpital Nord Laennec
🇫🇷Saint-herblain, France