Use of Logistic Regression to Evaluate All-Cause Readmission and Acute Renal Failure Rates for Infrarenal Fixation Device Family with ePTFE (Device A) Versus Two Suprarenal Fixation Devices with DACRON Material (Device B and C)
Author(s)
Mitesh Nakum1, Bismark Baidoo, PhD2, Anne Krohmer Marti, M.S.3.
1EMEA Health Economist / Modeler, W.L. Gore & Associates, Scotland, United Kingdom, 2WL GORE, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 3W.L. Gore & Associates, Newark, DE, USA.
1EMEA Health Economist / Modeler, W.L. Gore & Associates, Scotland, United Kingdom, 2WL GORE, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 3W.L. Gore & Associates, Newark, DE, USA.
Presentation Documents
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and use of an infrarenal fixation device family with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene(ePTFE) (Device A) against two widely used suprarenal fixation devices made with DACRON® material(Device B and Device C). The objective was to assess the relationship of post-operative complications to specified parameters, namely 30-day all-cause readmission to baseline acute renal disease and 30-day acute renal failure rate to a specific device.
METHODS: A retrospective, real-world analysis was conducted using data from the Premier Healthcare Database from 2020 to 2023 which included usage of one of the 3 device categories (n=978). Logistic regression was employed to evaluate key outcomes, including 30-day all-cause readmission rates related to baseline renal failure and 30-day acute renal failure rates related to device selection, while controlling for potential confounding variables.
RESULTS: The analysis showed that patients with baseline renal failure in all device arms had over twice the risk of 30-day all-cause readmission compared to those without baseline renal failure. Furthermore, patients receiving Device A had a 25% lower odds of developing acute renal failure within 30 days compared to those in the Device B cohort. When comparing Device A against Device C the odds of developing acute renal failure within 30 days were 80% lower among patients in the Device A cohort than in those of the Device C cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis concluded that Device A correlated with the lowest acute renal failure rates at 30 days, and may also contribute to a lower likelihood of readmission due to acute renal failure. Reduced readmissions from lower renal failure rates highlight the potential of Device A as a valuable option, particularly for patients at a higher risk of acute renal complications. These findings support Device A viability in clinical settings, warranting further investigation to evaluate long-term benefits in broader patient populations.
METHODS: A retrospective, real-world analysis was conducted using data from the Premier Healthcare Database from 2020 to 2023 which included usage of one of the 3 device categories (n=978). Logistic regression was employed to evaluate key outcomes, including 30-day all-cause readmission rates related to baseline renal failure and 30-day acute renal failure rates related to device selection, while controlling for potential confounding variables.
RESULTS: The analysis showed that patients with baseline renal failure in all device arms had over twice the risk of 30-day all-cause readmission compared to those without baseline renal failure. Furthermore, patients receiving Device A had a 25% lower odds of developing acute renal failure within 30 days compared to those in the Device B cohort. When comparing Device A against Device C the odds of developing acute renal failure within 30 days were 80% lower among patients in the Device A cohort than in those of the Device C cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: This analysis concluded that Device A correlated with the lowest acute renal failure rates at 30 days, and may also contribute to a lower likelihood of readmission due to acute renal failure. Reduced readmissions from lower renal failure rates highlight the potential of Device A as a valuable option, particularly for patients at a higher risk of acute renal complications. These findings support Device A viability in clinical settings, warranting further investigation to evaluate long-term benefits in broader patient populations.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-05, ISPOR 2025, Montréal, Quebec, CA
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S1
Code
CO187
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas, SDC: Cardiovascular Disorders (including MI, Stroke, Circulatory)