4.5 Article

Impact of Poverty and Health Care Insurance on Arteriovenous Fistula Use among Incident Hemodialysis Patients

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEPHROLOGY
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 328-336

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000441804

关键词

Arteriovenous fistula; End-stage renal disease; Poverty; Racial disparities; USRDS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The impact of socioeconomic factors on arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation in hemodialysis (HD) patients is not well understood. We assessed the association of area and individual-level indicators of poverty and health care insurance on AVF use among incident end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients initiated on HD. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study using the United States Renal Data System database, we identified 669,206 patients initiated on maintenance HD from January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2012. We assessed the Medicare-Medicaid dual-eligibility status as an indicator of individual-level poverty and ZIP code-level median household income (MHI) data obtained from the 2010 United States Census. We conducted logistic regression of AVF use at start of dialysis as the outcome variable. Results: The proportions of dual-eligible and non-dualeligible patients who initiated HD with an AVF were 12.53 and 16.17%, respectively (p < 0.001). Dual eligibility was associated with significantly lower likelihood of AVF use upon initiation of HD (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.91; 95% CI 0.90-0.93). Patients in the lowest area-level MHI quintile had an aOR of 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99) compared to those in higher quintile levels. However, dual eligibility and area-level MHI were not significant in patients with Veterans Affairs (VA) coverage. Conclusions: Individual-and area-level measures of poverty were independently associated with a lower likelihood of AVF use at the start of HD, the only exception being patients with VA health care benefits. Efforts to improve incident AVF use may require focusing on pre-ESRD care to be successful. (C) 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据