PDI
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Perit Dial Int 22(1): 39-47 2002
© 2002 International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sennfalt, K
Right arrow Articles by Carlsson, P
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sennfalt, K
Right arrow Articles by Carlsson, P
Peritoneal Dialysis International, Vol 22, Issue 1, 39-47
Copyright © 2002 by International Society for Peritoneal Dialysis

Articles

Comparison of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis--a cost-utility analysis

K Sennfalt, M Magnusson, and P Carlsson

Center for Medical Technology Assessment, Linkoping University, Sweden. karin.sennfalt@ihm.liu.se

OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare both health-related quality of life and costs for hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) in a defined population. DESIGN: Decision-tree modeling to estimate total costs and effects for two treatment strategies, HD and PD, among patients with chronic kidney failure, for 5 years following the start of treatment. Courses of events and health-care consumption were mapped in a retrospective matched-record study. Data on health status were obtained from a matched population by a quality-of-life questionnaire (EuroQol). The study has a societal perspective. SETTING: All dialysis departments in the southeastern health-care region of Sweden. PATIENTS: 136 patients with kidney failure, comprising 68 matched pairs, were included in a retrospective record study; 81 patients with kidney failure, comprising 27 matched triplets, were included in a prospective questionnaire study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per life year and cost per quality-adjusted life year. RESULTS: The cost per quality-adjusted life year for PD was lower in all analyzed age groups. There was a 12% difference in the age group 21-40 years, a 31% difference in the age group 41-60 years, and an 11% difference in the age group 61+ years. Peritoneal dialysis and HD resulted in similar frequencies of transplantation (50% and 41%, respectively) and expected survival (3.58 years and 3.56 years, respectively) during the first 5 years after the initiation of treatment. CONCLUSION: The cost-utility ratio is most favorable for PD as the primary method of treatment for patients eligible for both PD and HD.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Nephrol Dial TransplantHome page
N. Tangri, D. Ansell, and D. Naimark
Predicting technique survival in peritoneal dialysis patients: comparing artificial neural networks and logistic regression
Nephrol. Dial. Transplant., September 1, 2008; 23(9): 2972 - 2981.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CJASNHome page
P. A. McFarlane, A. Pierratos, A. M. Bayoumi, and D. A. Redelmeier
Estimating Preference Scores in Conventional and Home Nocturnal Hemodialysis Patients
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., May 1, 2007; 2(3): 477 - 483.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Multimed Inc. logo
Copyright © 2002 by Multimed Inc.