Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T15:48:32.844Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

TO REUSE OR NOT TO REUSE?

An Economic Evaluation of Hemodialyzer Reuse Versus Conventional Single-use Hemodialysis for Chronic Hemodialysis Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2002

Braden J. Manns
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Ken Taub
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Robert M. A. Richardson
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
Cam Donaldson
Affiliation:
University of Calgary

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reusing hemodialyzers for patients with kidney failure on dialysis employing either a heated citric acid or formaldehyde sterilization method, in comparison to the standard practice of single-use dialysis.

Methods: A meta-analysis of all relevant studies was performed to determine whether hemodialyzer reuse was associated with an increased relative risk of mortality or hospitalization. A decision tree was constructed to model the effect of three different dialysis strategies (single-use dialysis, heated citric acid, and formaldehyde dialyzer reuse) on the costs and quality-adjusted life expectancy of “typical” hemodialysis patients. The cost of heated citric acid reuse was estimated from a center experienced with the technique. The cost of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) care, survival data, and patient utilities were estimated from published sources.

Results: There was evidence of a higher relative risk of hospitalization (but not mortality) for hemodialyzer reuse compared with single-use dialysis. Depending on the assumptions used, the cost savings that could be expected by switching from single-use dialysis to heated citric acid reuse were small, ranging from CAN $0–739 per patient per year.

Conclusions: ESRD programs can incorporate the results of this study based on their individual situations to determine whether hemodialyzer reuse is appropriate in their setting.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2002 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)