Ultrafiltration versus diuretics for the treatment of fluid overload in patients with heart failure: a hospital cost analysis.

Background

Heart failure (HF) is a common, serious disease in the US and Europe. Patients with HF often require treatment for fluid overload, resulting in costly inpatient visits; however, limited evidence exists on the costs of alternative treatments. This study performed a cost-analysis of ultrafiltration (UF) vs diuretic therapy (DIUR-T) for patients with HF from the hospital perspective.

Methods

The model used clinical data from the literature and hospital data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project to follow a decision-analytic framework reflecting treatment decisions, probabilistic outcomes, and associated costs for treating patients with HF and hypervolemia with veno-venous UF or intravenous DIUR-T. A 90-day timeframe was considered to account for hospital readmissions beyond 30 days. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results.

Results

Although initial hospitalization costs were higher, fluid removal by UF reduced hospital readmission days, leading to cost savings of $3,975 (14.4%) at the 90-day follow-up (UF costs, $23,633; DIUR-T costs, $27,608).

Conclusions

UF is a viable alternative to DIUR-T when treating fluid overload in HF patients because it reduces hospital readmission rates and durations, which substantially lowers costs over a 90-day period compared to DIUR-T.