ArticleCVIR endovascular2026
Value-based approach to AVF maintenance: institutional micro-costing of drug-coated versus plain balloon angioplasty in a fixed-reimbursement system.
Article in CVIR endovascular, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the institutional cost-efficiency of paclitaxel drug-coated balloon (DCB; IN.PACT Admiral, Medtronic) versus plain balloon (PB) angioplasty for dysfunctional hemodialysis arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) over 24 months, in order to inform resource allocation policy in a fixed-reimbursement system. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis analysis uses clinical outcomes from a previously published single-center cohort of 62 patients (31 DCB, 31 PB) treated for dysfunctional AVFs. The paclitaxel DCB used in the cohort was IN.PACT Admiral (Medtronic). A detailed institutional micro-costing approach based on cost-recovery self-pay tariffs was applied to quantify direct procedural costs. Total mean cost per patient and cost per year of primary patency (CPYPP) were calculated, and a sensitivity analysis was performed to explore the impact of varying the DCB device price.
resultsThe DCB group demonstrated higher mean target-lesion primary patency (1.46 ± 0.56 vs 0.86 ± 0.59 years) and required fewer AVF-related endovascular interventions per patient over 24 months (1.55 ± 0.81 vs 2.29 ± 0.94). Total mean cost per patient was lower with DCB (€8496.02 vs €11,324.55), resulting in a lower cost per year of primary patency (CPYPP €5819 vs €13,168). Sensitivity analysis suggested that this cost-saving profile remained robust across a wide range of DCB device prices.
conclusionDespite the higher device cost, DCB angioplasty appeared to be a cost-saving and clinically more effective alternative to PB angioplasty in this cohort. Lower overall institutional expenditure and reduced reintervention frequency support its consideration for integration into AVF maintenance protocols and value-based care pathways in similar fixed-reimbursement settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.