Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 6, 2025

Author Spotlight: Utilizing Venoplasty Balloon Model in Rodents to Simulate Surgical Interventions for Deep Veins
Published on: May 24, 2024
Cost-Effectiveness of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Compared With Conventional Balloon Angioplasty for
Chin Cheung Andrew Lau1, Farah Irani2, Luming Shi3
1Duke NUS Medical School, Singapore.
Insights
Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty shows potential cost-effectiveness for arteriovenous fistula/graft dysfunction compared to conventional angioplasty. Considering abandonment costs reveals DCB as weakly cost-effective in this patient group.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Health Economics
- Interventional Cardiology
Background:
- Arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) are crucial for hemodialysis access.
- Dysfunction of AVFs/AVGs necessitates interventions like angioplasty.
- Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty offers a potential alternative to conventional balloon angioplasty (cPTA).
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DCB angioplasty versus cPTA for AVF/AVG dysfunction.
- To incorporate AVF/AVG abandonment costs into the economic analysis.
- To assess cost-effectiveness from a Singapore healthcare perspective.
Main Methods:
- A Markov model-based economic evaluation was conducted.
- The model included costs of AVF/AVG creation, maturation, and routine interventions.
- Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
- Cost-effectiveness was determined using incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of S$87,000.
Main Results:
- DCB angioplasty was not cost-effective at a 3-year horizon (NMB = -S$1424).
- DCB was cost-effective at 1-year (NMB = S$356) and 6-year (NMB = S$3738) horizons.
- The probability of DCB being cost-effective was 34.5% at 3 years, and 58.6% (1-year) and 59.9% (6-year) at longer horizons.
- DCB showed a trend towards fewer AVF/AVG abandonments, but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.21).
Conclusions:
- DCB angioplasty may be weakly cost-effective compared to cPTA for treating AVF/AVG flow dysfunction when abandonment costs are considered.
- AV access creation and maturation costs are significant factors in assessing DCB cost-effectiveness.
- Further research may refine the understanding of DCB's long-term economic value in vascular access interventions.
Objectives:
This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty compared with conventional balloon angioplasty (cPTA) in patients with arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) and arteriovenous grafts (AVGs) dysfunction from a Singapore healthcare perspective.
Methods:
Existing cost-effectiveness studies comparing DCB and cPTA have not incorporated AVF/AVG abandonment costs. This Markov model-based economic evaluation incorporated AVF/AVG creation and maturation costs on top of routine intervention costs to model a hypothetical cohort of 60-year-old AVF/AVG flow dysfunction patients. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using incremental net monetary benefit (NMB) at a Singapore willingness-to-pay threshold of Singapore dollar (S$)87 000. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to examine parameter uncertainty. To test hypotheses regarding cost-effectiveness, intervention counts per patient, cumulative incidence functions of AVF/AVG abandonment, and survival curves of death were compared between DCB and cPTA.
Results:
DCB was not cost-effective at 3-year horizon (NMB = -S$1424), but was cost-effective at 1- and 6-year horizons (NMB = S$356 and S$3738, respectively). At 3 years, there was a 34.5% probability of DCB being cost-effective, but at 1- and 6-year horizons there was, respectively, 58.6% and 59.9% probability of DCB being cost-effective. DCB had graphically less AVF/AVG-abandonments, but this was not statistically significant (P = .21). Differences in other parameters were neither graphically nor statistically significant.
Conclusions:
With AVF/AVG abandonment considered, DCB may be weakly cost-effective compared with cPTA in treating AVF/AVG flow dysfunction. AV access creation and maturation costs could have important explanatory value in assessing DCB cost-effectiveness.
More Related Videos
13:48Reduction of Radiation Exposure during Endovascular Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Disease Combining Fiber Optic RealShape Technology and Intravascular Ultrasound
Published on: April 21, 2023
06:10Utilizing Percutaneous Ventricular Assist Devices in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock
Published on: June 12, 2021
Related Concept Videos
Hemodialysis I: Introduction
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Coronary Artery Disease V: Interprofessional Care