Cost-effectiveness of hemofiltration to prevent contrast nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prophylactic hemofiltration has been reported, in one study, to reduce renal complications and death but necessitates additional up-front health care resource deployment in a critical care setting. We sought to explore the potential scope and cost-effectiveness of this strategy. DESIGN: Economic evaluation using decision analysis. SETTING: Tertiary or quaternary care hospital. PATIENTS: Subjects undergoing angiography at risk for developing contrast nephropathy. INTERVENTION: Prophylactic hemofiltration was compared with intravenous saline. Secondary models incorporated sodium bicarbonate and N-acetylcysteine as comparators. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained with hemofiltration compared with intravenous saline in high-risk subjects (mean serum creatinine, 265 micromol/L) was 3,900 US dollars. This finding was sensitive to variations in several important variables. For instance, the cost-effectiveness ratio became less attractive (i.e., >50,000 US dollars/QALY) when hemofiltration was used in lower-risk subjects (serum creatinine, <265 micromol/L). The cost-effectiveness remained <50,000 US dollars/QALY provided that the relative risk of hemofiltration compared with saline alone was below 0.65 (reported relative risk, 0.10). Although based on indirect comparison of clinical efficacy, when N-acetylcysteine or sodium bicarbonate was used as the comparator, the cost per QALY gained for hemofiltration became markedly less attractive (50,100 US dollars and >1,000,000 US dollars), although the relative effectiveness of these three strategies strongly influenced the results. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prophylactic hemofiltration in patients at high risk for contrast nephropathy may be potentially cost-effective only if certain conditions are satisfied, and its attractiveness is materially diminished when compared to other strategies. As this invasive therapy would entail certain immediate resource outlay, before considering its implementation it is crucial to confirm the clinical effectiveness and health care resource consequences of hemofiltration relative to current standards of care in future studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".