Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 2, 2026
Digital Home-Monitoring of Patients after Kidney Transplantation: The MACCS Platform
Published on: April 12, 2021
Screening for Asymptomatic Coronary Artery Disease in Waitlisted Kidney Transplant Candidates: A Cost-Utility
Tracey Ying1, Anh Tran2, Angela C Webster3
1Renal Department, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, NSW.
Insights
For kidney transplant candidates, foregoing regular screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) is cost-effective and may improve survival. This finding suggests a potential shift in screening protocols for asymptomatic CAD in this population.
Area of Science:
- Nephrology
- Cardiology
- Health Economics
Background:
- Cardiovascular disease (CAD) is prevalent in kidney failure patients.
- Clinical guidelines recommend CAD screening for kidney transplant waitlist candidates.
- The cost-effectiveness of this screening has not been previously evaluated.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct a cost-utility analysis of CAD screening in kidney transplant candidates.
- To determine the cost-effectiveness of no further screening versus regular screening for asymptomatic CAD.
- To identify influential variables affecting the economic evaluation.
Main Methods:
- A modeled cost-utility analysis using a Markov microsimulation model.
- Analysis conducted from a health system perspective over a lifetime horizon.
- A theoretical cohort of adult Australian and New Zealand kidney transplant candidates was modeled.
Main Results:
- No further screening yielded an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $11,122 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained compared to regular screening.
- No further screening increased survival by 0.49 life-years or 0.35 QALYs.
- Sensitivity analyses identified first-year transplantation costs and CAD prevalence as key variables; 94% of simulations were cost-effective at a $50,000/QALY threshold.
Conclusions:
- No further screening for asymptomatic CAD after kidney transplant waitlisting is likely cost-effective.
- This approach may improve patient survival.
- Further precision in CAD prevalence and healthcare resource use estimates is needed to reduce uncertainty.
Rationale & Objective:
On account of the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease in patients with kidney failure, clinical practice guidelines recommend regular screening for asymptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients on the kidney transplant waitlist. To date, the cost-effectiveness of such screening has not been evaluated. A Canadian-Australasian randomized controlled trial of screening kidney transplant candidates for CAD (CARSK) is currently is being conducted to answer this question. We conducted a cost-utility analysis to determine, before completion of the trial, the cost-effectiveness of no further screening versus regular screening for asymptomatic CAD and to evaluate potential influential variables that may affect results of the economic evaluation.
Study Design:
A modeled cost-utility analysis.
Setting & Population:
A theoretical cohort of adult Australian and New Zealand kidney transplant candidates on the waitlist.
Intervention:
No further screening for asymptomatic CAD versus regular protocolized screening (annual or second yearly) for CAD after kidney transplant waitlisting.
Outcomes:
Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, reported as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).
Model, Perspectives, & Timeframe:
Markov microsimulation model, health system perspective and over a lifetime horizon.
Results:
In the base case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of no further screening was $11,122 per QALY gained when compared with regular screening. No further screening increased survival by 0.49 life-year or 0.35 QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses identified the costs of transplantation in the first year and CAD prevalence as the most influential variables. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that 94% of the simulations were cost-effective below a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained.
Limitations:
Rates of cardiovascular events in waitlisted candidates and transplant recipients are limited in the contemporary era. The results may not be generalizable to populations outside Australia and New Zealand.
Conclusions:
No further screening for CAD after waitlisting is likely to be cost-effective and may improve survival. Precision around CAD prevalence estimates and health care resource use will reduce existing uncertainty.
Related Concept Videos
01:28Kidney Transplant I: Introduction
01:25Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System VI: Calcium -Scoring CT
01:26Kidney Transplant II: Surgical Procedure
01:30Acute Kidney Injury IV: Diagnostic Studies and Prevention
01:28Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System V: CT
01:16Kidney Transplant III: Nursing Management