Economic Evaluation of Urgent-Start Peritoneal Dialysis Versus Urgent-Start Hemodialysis in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients presenting late in the course of kidney disease who require urgent initiation of dialysis have traditionally received temporary vascular catheters followed by hemodialysis. Recent changes in Medicare payment policy for dialysis in the USA incentivized the use of peritoneal dialysis (PD). Consequently, the use of more expeditious PD for late-presenting patients (urgent-start PD) has received new attention. Urgent-start PD has been shown to be safe and effective, and offers a mechanism for increasing PD utilization. However, there has been no assessment of the dialysis-related costs over the first 90 days of care. The objective of this study was to characterize the costs associated with urgent-start PD, urgent-start hemodialysis (HD), or a dual approach (urgent-start HD followed by urgent-start PD) over the first 90 days of treatment from a provider perspective. A survey of practitioners from 5 clinics known to use urgent-start PD was conducted to provide inputs for a cost model representing typical patients. Model inputs were obtained from the survey, literature review, and available cost data. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted. The estimated per patient cost over the first 90 days for urgent-start PD was $16,398. Dialysis access represented 15% of total costs, dialysis services 48%, and initial hospitalization 37%. For urgent-start HD, total per patient costs were $19,352, and dialysis access accounted for 27%, dialysis services 42%, and initial hospitalization 31%. The estimated cost for dual patients was $19,400. Urgent-start PD may offer a cost saving approach for the initiation of dialysis in eligible patients requiring an urgent-start to dialysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".