Markov model for selection of aortic valve replacement versus transcatheter aortic valve implantation (without replacement) in high-risk patients

Ross procedure or mechanical aortic valve, which is the best lifetime option for an 18-year-old? A decision analysis

Objectives

Identifying the optimal solution for young adults requiring aortic valve replacement (AVR) is challenging, given the variety of options and their lifetime complication risks, impacts on quality of life, and costs. Decision analytic techniques make comparisons incorporating these measures. We evaluated lifetime valve-related outcomes of mechanical aortic valve replacement (mAVR) versus the Ross procedure (Ross) using decision tree microsimulations modeling.

Methods

Transition probabilities, utilities, and costs derived from published reports were entered into a Markov model decision tree to explore progression between health states for hypothetical 18-year-old patients. In total, 20,000 Monte Carlo microsimulations were performed to model mortality, quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs), and health care costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Sensitivity analyses was performed to identify transition probabilities at which the preferred strategy switched from baseline.

Results

From modeling, average 20-year mortality was 16.3% and 23.2% for Ross and mAVR, respectively. Average 20-year freedom from stroke and major bleeding was 98.6% and 94.6% for Ross, and 90.0% and 82.2% for mAVR, respectively. Average individual lifetime (60 postoperative years) utility (28.3 vs 23.5 QALYs) and cost ($54,233 vs $507,240) favored Ross over mAVR. The average ICER demonstrated that each QALY would cost $95,345 more for mAVR. Sensitivity analysis revealed late annual probabilities of autograft/left ventricular outflow tract disease and homograft/right ventricular outflow tract disease after Ross, and late death after mAVR, to be important ICER determinants.

Conclusions

Our modeling suggests that Ross is preferred to mAVR, with superior freedom from valve-related morbidity and mortality, and improved cost-utility for young adults requiring aortic valve surgery.

A Systematic Review and Statistical Analysis of Factors Influencing the Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis

Objective

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a disruptive technology recommended for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS). Despite being available for over 15 years in Europe, with an extensive volume of clinical and economic evaluations across all surgical risk groups, there is little evidence on the identification of the key drivers of TAVI's cost-effectiveness. This study sought to identify these factors and quantify their role.

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published economic evaluations of TAVI. This was supplemented by health technology assessment reports. The primary outcome was the likelihood of TAVI being found cost-effective. Secondary outcomes of TAVI being dominant, and the incremental health benefits of TAVI were also explored.

Results

Forty-two studies, reporting 65 unique analyses, were identified. TAVI was found to be cost-effective and dominant in 74% and 20% of analyses, respectively. The latest generation balloon-expandable TAVI device (SAPIEN 3) was more likely to be found cost-effective, as was TAVI use in low-risk populations and when performed via transfemoral access route. There was heterogeneity in the approach taken to economic modelling, which may also influence estimates of cost-effectiveness. Analyses that found TAVI to be dominant always compared it to surgery and usually considered the latest generation balloon-expandable TAVI device. Largest health benefits were observed for the inoperable risk group.

Conclusion

For patients with sSAS, TAVI is typically a cost-effective treatment option. There are important differences by device generation, risk group and access route. It is crucial to consider these differences when appraising the health economic evidence-base for TAVI.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis: systematic review of cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive and costly treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). This study aimed to systematically review the published literature focusing on economic evaluation of TAVI compared with other alternative treatments in AS populations.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted from inception until May 2021 using PubMed, Scopus, Web of science and Embase databases. The qualities of included studies were evaluated using Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standard (CHEERS) criteria. Data of costs, outcomes, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and willingness to pay were extracted. To compare results, ICERs were converted to the 2020 United States dollar (USD) rate.

RESULTS

Of the 29 included cost-effectiveness studies, TAVI was cost-effective in all studies in the low-risk group (3/3), 77% of studies (7/9) in the intermediate-risk group, half of the studies (6/12) in the high-risk group, and 83% of studies (10/12) in the inoperable group. When adjusted to USD 2020, ICERs ranged from USD 2741 to 1027,674 USD per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The overall quality of the studies ranged from moderate to high.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI is potentially a cost-effective alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with operable AS with low, intermediate or high risk compared with medical management (MM) for patients with inoperable AS. TAVI was associated with a significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years in almost all studies compared to either SAVR or MM. TAVI is a costly procedure; therefore, justifying its cost-effectiveness depends on the acceptable threshold in each country.

The economics of TAVI: A systematic review

Objective

The scope of this systematic review is to update the existing body of evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation, stratified across all risk categories, and to assess their methodological quality.

Methods

A systematic review was performed including published cost-effectiveness analyses of heart valve implantations. The quality was assessed with the Quality of Health Economics Tool.

Results

We identified 33 economic evaluations of transcatheter aortic heart valve implantations. Results were not consistent, ranging from dominant to dominating. Moreover, the models were sensitive to an array of variables. The methodological quality of the studies was good.

Conclusion

This systematic review led to inconclusive and inconsistent results pertinent to the economic profile of TAVI technology. It also highlighted areas which merit further research regarding the pillars of cost-effectiveness analysis such as modeling, the extrapolation of available data and the uncertainty of the evidence. A thorough assessment of the patient should proceed any decision-making.

Outcome and Cost Comparisons Between Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacements

OBJECTIVE

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the standard of care for severe aortic stenosis. In 2019, annual transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) implantations surpassed SAVR. We compared in-hospital costs and outcomes between these two procedures.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent isolated SAVR or TAVR from October 2013 to December 2019. Baseline patient characteristics, operating room (OR) time, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), total LOS, cumulative cost, and complication rates were collected. Propensity matching was performed to identify differences in costs and outcomes between comparable groups.

RESULTS

There were 515 patients who met inclusion criteria. TAVR was performed in 402 patients, while SAVR was performed in 113. Propensity matching resulted in 82 matched pairs. The SAVR cohort more frequently spent >1 day in the ICU, had longer total hospital LOS, longer OR time, and higher hospitalization cost. However, TAVR was associated with higher mean OR cost and higher valve cost. The cumulative index admission costs were not significantly different between groups. TAVR patients had less postoperative atrial fibrillation but more frequent pacemaker placement. One-year mortality was similar between SAVR (2.4%) and TAVR (3.8%), but 3-year (5.8% vs 19.2%) and 5-year (5.8% vs 37.2%) mortality favored SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

In propensity-matched groups, TAVR was associated with shorter ICU and hospital LOS and OR times but increased permanent pacemaker rates. In addition, while 1-year survival was similar between groups, SAVR had significantly improved 3-year and 5-year survival.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation versus Surgery in High-Risk Severe Aortic Stenosis Patients in Thailand

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has been shown to be effective in treating patients with severe symptomatic AS who are high-risk population for conventional surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of TAVI compared with SAVR for severe aortic stenosis with high surgical risk in Thailand.

Methods

Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from societal and healthcare perspectives were estimated using a two-part constructed model. The study population consisted of 80-year-old severe AS patients with high surgical risk. Mortality and complication rates were obtained from landmark trials. All cost-related and utility data were based on Thai population. Costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 3% annually and presented as 2021 values. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed. Sensitivity analyses were performed both deterministically and probabilistically.

Results

The findings from a societal perspective revealed that TAVI treatment was associated with higher cost (THB 1,551,895 [USD 47,371.64] vs THB 548,438 [USD 16,741.09] and higher QALYs than SAVR treatment (3.15 vs 2.31 QALYs). The estimated ICER was THB 1,196,191/QALY (USD 36,513.78 QALY). For the healthcare system perspective, TAVI treatment resulted in a higher total cost than SAVR treatment (THB 1,451,317 [USD 44,301.49] vs THB 432,398 [USD 13,198.95]) with comparable gains in LY and QALYs from a societal perspective. The ICER was calculated to be THB 1,214,624/QALY (USD 37,076.42/QALY). TAVI was not cost-effective at the Thai willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of THB 160,000/QALY (USD 4884/QALY). The model was the most sensitive to changes in TAVI valve cost and TAVI or SAVR treatment utilities.

Conclusion

TAVI is not a cost-effective strategy in patients with severe AS who are at high surgical risk when compared to SAVR at the WTP of THB 160,000/QALY (USD 4884/QALY) from the perspectives of society and the healthcare system.

The transcatheter aortic valve implantation: an assessment of the generalizability of the economic evidences following a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Scientific literature debates on the economic affordability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in order to give a useful support to decision makers aiming at establishing a reimbursement scheme for TAVI. For this reason, it is important to assess the quality and the generalizability of the existing economic evidences.

METHODS

The first step was to run a literature search according to a predefined population, intervention, comparator, and outcome on the cost and effectiveness of the TAVI procedure in comparison to medical therapy and traditional surgery. Second, a manual search was carried out on the Web sites of the main HTA agencies. Third, the checklist developed by Augustovski et al. was applied in order to assess the quality and the generalizability of the articles resulting from the selection process.

RESULTS

Overall, 106 articles were obtained. Of these, sixty-five articles were excluded since the title was not consistent with the objective. Further selection took place after abstract and full-text reading. In the end, thirty-one documents were included for the review. According to the checklist, none of the articles was considered generalizable and only one was considered transferable which compares the TAVI procedure with Medical Management in inoperable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the overall quality of the selected studies was considered good, there is still a lack of evidence on whether evidences generated in different contexts can be considered generalizable. Further research on resource consumption and preferences is needed in order to provide decision makers with more robust evidences.

True cost of surgical aortic valve replacement and implications for price setting and diagnosis-related groups: evidence from a tertiary hospital in Eastern China

Background: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has long been the standard treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis in China, but the costs of SAVR from a hospital perspective in China have not been thoroughly researched. Currently, diagnosis-related groups in China are based on historical expenses that are closely related to the unit charges set by the official pricing department and are frequently inaccurate compared with actual resource consumption. Materials & methods: Through a retrospective empirical study on the costs and charges of SAVR cases in a tertiary hospital, this study aimed to compare the costs and charges of service items. We collected clinical information from patients undergoing SAVR (isolated or concomitant procedures) and financial information from the hospital in 2015 and 2016. Top-down full cost accounting and step-allocation were the main methods used in this study. Result: This research selected 203 SAVR cases in 2015 and 214 cases in 2016. The median length of hospital stay was 15.92 days (6.07 days pre surgery and 9.57 days post surgery). The average human resource cost of care per day per bed in the cardiovascular surgery department, including doctors and nurses, was US $62.22 in 2015 and $66.17 in 2016, but the corresponding charge was no more than $24. For operation, the cost of isolated SAVR was $665 in 2015 and $1015 in 2016, while the charge was $820. For anesthesiology, the cost of isolated SAVR was $400 in 2015 and $526 in 2016, while the average charge was $192. For examination service items, some costs did not exceed charges. The average total cost of a case was $19,299 ± 8954, while the average total charge was $18,923 ± 9194. Conclusion: SAVR is associated with significant resource utilization and hospital stay duration. The fees for human resources and services associated with SAVR do not reflect the true costs of SAVR in a Chinese hospital setting. This study may assist in future budget planning and price setting for policy makers in China.

Economic assessment of traditional surgical valve replacement versus use of transfemoral intervention in degenerative aortic stenosis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to provide an economic assessment of interventional vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in the context of cost-effectiveness. Aortic stenosis represents the most common form of degenerative valvular heart diseases. As life expectancy increases, an even emerging prevalence is expected. Over decades, surgical replacement was considered as the method of choice. Up to one third of the patients were not eligible for surgery, as their estimated peri-operative risk was too high. In the early 2000s a catheter-based technique has been developed, being an alternative treatment option for patients, considered to be inoperable.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic analysis of current literature was performed from September 2018 to December 2018. All suitable data in the field was obtained from Pubmed and Google/Google scholar. The search terms "TAVI AND costs," "TAVR and costs" and "aortic valve replacement AND costs" was entered in the search field, showing an overall amount of 317 publications. In a next step all obtained publications were screened by expert hand selection.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Recently the Food and Drug Association (FDA) approved transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the low-risk setting. Nevertheless, concerns on the higher price remain. We performed an analysis of current literature on aortic stenosis and economic aspects. Out of 322 screened publications, 7 studies were found eligible by expert hand selection. Based on the predefined payment readiness of the analyzed healthcare system, TAVR appeared to have a slightly better cost effectiveness. Initial results within the early era seemed to be inconsistent. Recent publications showed, TAVR might be of more cost effectiveness when using the newest generation devices and a profound clinical experience is guaranteed.

CONCLUSIONS

We assume, that TAVR will not only be the method of choice for the treatment of aortic stenosis in many patients. As the valves are getting cheaper, TAVR might even be superior to conventional heart surgery from an economic point of view.

A Canadian cost-effectiveness analysis of SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared with surgery, in intermediate and high-risk severe aortic stenosis patients

Background and objectives: The treatment of severe aortic stenosis requires replacement of the defective native valve. Traditionally, this has been done via surgery, but in the last 10 years, transcatheter techniques have emerged. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive option compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and this study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of TAVI versus SAVR in intermediate and high surgical risk patients in Canada. Methods: A Markov model was used to project the costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained for TAVI using the SAPIEN 3 valve and SAVR over a 15-year time horizon. The PARTNER I and II studies were used to populate the model in terms of survival, clinical event rates and quality of life over time. The costs of TAVI with SAPIEN 3 and SAVR as well as the costs associated with events included in the model were derived from Canadian administrative and literature data. Costs were expressed in 2018 Canadian dollars and all future costs and QALYs were discounted at a rate of 1.5% annually. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of TAVI using the SAPIEN 3 valve compared to surgery were $28,154 per QALY gained in intermediate risk patients and $17,237 per QALY gained in high-risk patients. The results of the probabilistic analyses indicated that at willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, the probability of TAVI to be cost-effective was greater than 0.9 in both intermediate-risk and high-risk patients. Sensitivity analyses showed the results were most sensitive to the time horizon used. Conclusion: TAVI using the SAPIEN 3 valve is highly likely to be cost-effective in Canadian patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at intermediate and high surgical risk.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Ross procedure versus conventional aortic valve replacement in young adults

Objectives

In young and middle-aged adults, there are three current options for aortic valve replacement (AVR), namely mechanical AVR (mechAVR), tissue AVR (biological AVR) and the Ross operation, with no clear guidance on the best option. We aim to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Ross procedure with conventional AVR in young and middle-aged adults.

Methods

This is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of AVR options. Markov multistate model was adopted to compare cost-effectiveness. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), net monetary benefit (NMB), population expected value of perfect information (EVPI) and expected value of partial perfect information were estimated.

Results

We identified 48 cohorts with a total number of 12 975 patients (mean age 44.5 years, mean follow-up 7.1 years). Mortality, bleeding and thromboembolic events over the follow-up period were lowest after the Ross operation, compared with mechAVR and biological AVR (p<0.001). Aortic reoperation rates were lower after Ross compared with biological AVR, but slightly higher when compared with mechAVR (p<0.001). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20effective. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20, 000 per QALY000 per QALY, the Ross procedure is more cost-effective compared the Ross procedure is more cost-effective compared withwith conventional AVR, with a lifetime incremental NMB of £60 conventional AVR, with a lifetime incremental NMB of £60 952 (952 (££3030 236236 to to ££7979 464). Incremental costs were £12464). Incremental costs were £12 323 (323 (££61086108 to to ££1515 972) and incremental QALYs 3.66 (1.81972) and incremental QALYs 3.66 (1.81 to to 4.76). The population EVPI indicates that a trial costing up to £2.03 million could be cost 4.76). The population EVPI indicates that a trial costing up to £2.03 million could be cost--effective.

At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY, the Ross procedure is more cost-effective compared with conventional AVR, with a lifetime incremental NMB of £60 952 (£30 236 to £79 464). Incremental costs were £12 323 (£6108 to £15 972) and incremental QALYs 3.66 (1.81 to 4.76). The population EVPI indicates that a trial costing up to £2.03 million could be cost-effective.

Conclusions

In young and middle-aged adults with aortic valve disease, the Ross procedure may confer greater quality of life and be more cost-effective than conventional AVR. A high-quality randomised trial could be warranted and cost-effective.

Cost-utility of surgical sutureless bioprostheses vs TAVI in aortic valve replacement for patients at intermediate and high surgical risk

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of studies comparing transcatheter aortic valve implants (TAVIs) and sutureless aortic valve replacement (SU-AVR) show differing effectiveness and safety profiles. The approaches also differ in their surgical cost (including operating room and device).

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the incremental cost-utility of SU-AVR vs TAVIs for the treatment of intermediate- to high-risk patients in the US, Germany, France, Italy, UK, and Australia.

METHODS

A patient-level simulation compares in-hospital pathways of patients undergoing SU-AVR or TAVIs; later, patient history is modeled at the cohort level. Hospital outcomes for TAVIs reproduce data from recent series; in SU-AVR patients, outcomes are obtained by applying relative efficacy estimates in a recent meta-analysis on 1,462 patients. After discharge, survival depends on the development of paravalvular leak and the need for dialysis. A comprehensive third-party payer perspective encompassing both in-hospital and long-term costs was adopted.

RESULTS

Due to lower in-hospital (4.1% vs 7.0%) and overall mortality, patients treated with SU-AVR are expected to live an average of 1.25 years more compared with those undergoing TAVIs, with a mean gain of 1.14 quality-adjusted life-years. Both in-hospital and long-term costs were lower for SU-AVR than for TAVIs with total savings ranging from $4,158 (France) to $20,930 (US).

CONCLUSION

SU-AVR results dominant when compared to TAVIs in intermediate- to high-risk patients. Both in-hospital and long-term costs are lower for SU-AVR than for TAVI patients, with concomitant significant gains in life expectancy, both raw and adjusted for the quality of life.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Episode Payments and Relationship to Case Volume

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has increased in volume as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Comparisons of total episode expenditures, although largely ignored thus far, will be key to the value proposition for payers.

METHODS

We evaluated 6,359 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing TAVR (17 hospitals, n = 1,655) or SAVR (33 hospitals, n = 4,704) in Michigan between 2012 and 2016. Payments through 90 post-discharge days between TAVR and SAVR were price-standardized and risk-adjusted. Centers were divided into terciles of procedural volume separately for TAVR and SAVR, and payments were compared between lowest and highest terciles.

RESULTS

Payments (± SD) were higher for TAVR than SAVR ($69,388 ± $22,259 versus $66,683 ± $27,377, p < 0.001), while mean hospital length of stay was shorter for TAVR (6.2 ± 5.6 versus 10.2 + 7.5 days, p < 0.001). Index hospitalization payments were $4,374 higher for TAVR (p < 0.001), whereas readmission and post-acute care payments were $1,150 (p = 0.001) and $739 (p = 0.004) lower, respectively, and professional payments were similar. For SAVR, high-volume centers had lower episode payments (difference: 5.0%, $3,255; p = 0.01) and shorter length of stay (10.0 ± 7.5 versus 11.1 ± 7.9 days, p = 0.002) than low volume centers. In contrast, we found no volume-payment relationship among TAVR centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Episode payments were higher for TAVR, despite shorter length of stay. Although not a driver for TAVR, center SAVR volume was inversely associated with payments. These data will be increasingly important to address value-based reimbursement in valve replacement surgery.

Systematic review of model-based economic evaluations of heart valve implantations

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of heart valve implantations generated by decision analytic models and to assess their methodological quality.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed including model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of heart valve implantations. Study and model characteristics and cost-effectiveness results were extracted and the methodological quality was assessed using the Philips checklist.

RESULTS

Fourteen decision-analytic models regarding the cost-effectiveness of heart valve implantations were identified. In most studies transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was cost-effective compared to standard treatment (ST) in inoperable or high-risk operable patients (ICER range 18,421-120,779 €) and in all studies surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was cost-effective compared to ST in operable patients (ICER range 14,108-40,944 €), but the results were not consistent on the cost-effectiveness of TAVI versus SAVR in high-risk operable patients (ICER range: dominant to dominated by SAVR). Mechanical mitral valve replacement (MVR) had the lowest costs per success compared to mitral valve repair and biological MVR. The methodological quality of the studies was moderate to good.

CONCLUSION

This review showed that improvements can be made in the description and justification of methods and data sources, sensitivity analysis on extrapolation of results, subgroup analyses, consideration of methodological and structural uncertainty, and consistency (i.e. validity) of the models. There are several opportunities for future decision-analytic models of the cost-effectiveness of heart valve implantations: considering heart valve implantations in other valve positions besides the aortic valve, using a societal perspective, and developing patient-simulation models to investigate the impact of patient characteristics on outcomes.

Cost effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with aortic stenosis in Japan

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive treatment for elderly patients with aortic stenosis. However, the cost of TAVI is a major issue. This study analyzed the cost effectiveness of TAVI in Japan.

METHODS

We developed an economic model to evaluate the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs of TAVI, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), and medical therapy over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of Japanese public healthcare payers. The first model compared transapical or transfemoral TAVI with Sapien valve implantation and medical therapy in inoperable patients. The second model compared transfemoral TAVI with Sapien XT valve implantation and SAVR in operable patients with intermediate surgical risk. We assumed a cost-effectiveness threshold of 5,000,000yen per QALY, and assessed the cost-effectiveness probability with 100,000 simulations. We performed a broad sensitivity analysis to assess the effect of uncertainty on our results.

RESULTS

Among inoperable patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVI compared with medical therapy was 3,918,808yen per QALY. In operable patients, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVI compared with SAVR was 7,523,821yen per QALY. The cost-effectiveness probability of TAVI was 60% for inoperable patients and 46% for operable patients. Among inoperable patients, the cost-effective threshold of TAVI was <7,759,085yen. Among operable patients, the cost-effective threshold of TAVI was <5,427,439yen.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that TAVI has good cost effectiveness for inoperable patients, but not for operable patients.

Impact of health utility after thrombotic complications following total hip and knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Medical complications and preexisting conditions frequently place the surgeon in the unenviable position of choosing between the serious and potentially life-threatening effects of thrombosis, or the issue of bleeding and surgical site complications. The aim of this research was to determine if health utility could be a consideration before choosing to therapeutically anticoagulate in the hip and knee arthroplasty patient.

METHODS

The quantitative risks and effectiveness of treatment options for venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndromes, ischaemic stroke and mechanical heart valves were evaluated from previously published data. Previously calculated health utility values were obtained from published studies for both thrombotic events and anticoagulant-related complications at the site of arthroplasty. An impact score was generated through a multiplication of 1 - utility with the rate of the event occurring.

RESULTS

Impact scores associated with revision surgery and deep infection at the arthroplasty site following anticoagulation are higher compared to impact scores in subsets of non-treated venous thromboembolism, low CHADS2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age >75, diabetes (1 point each), stroke/transient ischaemic attack (2 points)) atrial fibrillation and potentially some acute coronary syndrome patients. Some anticoagulation strategies in mechanical heart valves are of definite overall patient value due to the significant complications otherwise.

CONCLUSION

Objective calculation of both the benefit and risks of anticoagulation in the post-operative patient is significantly altered by including the effect on patient's quality of life utility value. Therapeutic anticoagulation in some common situations is probable to be of more detriment than benefit when considering health utility.

Outcomes for Low-Risk Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Benchmark for Aortic Valve Technology

BACKGROUND

Two large, randomized trials are underway evaluating transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) against conventional surgical AVR. We analyzed contemporary, real-world outcomes of surgical AVR in low-risk patients to provide a practical benchmark of outcomes and cost for evaluating current and future transapical AVR technology.

METHODS

From 2010 to 2015, 2,505 isolated AVR operations were performed for severe aortic stenosis at 18 statewide cardiac institutions. Of these, 2,138 patients had a Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of less than 4%, and 1,119 met other clinical and hemodynamic criteria as outlined in the PARTNER 3 (The Placement of Transcatheter Aortic Valves) protocol. Patients with endocarditis, end-stage renal disease, ejection fraction of less than 0.45, bicuspid valves, and previous valve replacements were excluded. Outcomes of interest included operative death and postoperative adverse events.

RESULTS

The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality for the study-eligible patients was 1.44%, with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range [IQR], 65 to 78 years). Operative mortality was 1.3%, permanent stroke was 1.3%, and pacemaker requirement was 4.2%. The most common adverse events were transfusion of 2 or more units of red blood cells (18%) and atrial fibrillation (28%). The median length of stay was 6 days (IQR, 5 to 8 days). Median total hospital cost was $37,999 (IQR, $30,671 to $46,138). Examination of complications by age younger than 65 vs 65 or older demonstrated a significantly lower need for transfusion (11.2%, p < 0.001) and incidence of atrial fibrillation (17.1%, p < 0.001) but no difference in operative mortality (2.2% vs 0.9%, p = 0.1), major morbidity (10.4% vs 12.6%, p = 0.3), or total hospital costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-risk patients undergoing surgical AVR in the current era have excellent results. The most common complications were atrial fibrillation and bleeding. These real-world results should provide additional context for upcoming transcatheter clinical trial data.

Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices

Medical devices (MDs) have distinctive features, such as incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, the learning curve and organisational impact, that need to be considered when they are evaluated. This paper investigates how MDs have been assessed in practice, in order to identify methodological gaps that need to be addressed to improve the decision-making process for their adoption. We used the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist supplemented by some additional categories to assess the quality of reporting and consideration of the distinctive features of MDs. Two case studies were considered: transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) representing an emerging technology and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) representing a mature technology. Economic evaluation studies published as journal articles or within Health Technology Assessment reports were identified through a systematic literature review. A total of 19 studies on TAVI and 41 studies on ICDs were analysed. Learning curve was considered in only 16% of studies on TAVI. Incremental innovation was more frequently mentioned in the studies of ICDs, but its impact was considered in only 34% of the cases. Dynamic pricing was the most recognised feature but was empirically tested in less than half of studies of TAVI and only 32% of studies on ICDs. Finally, organisational impact was considered in only one study of ICDs and in almost all studies on TAVI, but none of them estimated its impact. By their very nature, most of the distinctive features of MDs cannot be fully assessed at market entry. However, their potential impact could be modelled, based on the experience with previous MDs, in order to make a preliminary recommendation. Then, well-designed post-market studies could help in reducing uncertainties and make policymakers more confident to achieve conclusive recommendations. © 2017 The Authors. Health Economics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Conceptual model for early health technology assessment of current and novel heart valve interventions

Objective

The future promises many technological advances in the field of heart valve interventions, like tissue-engineered heart valves (TEHV). Prior to introduction in clinical practice, it is essential to perform early health technology assessment. We aim to develop a conceptual model (CM) that can be used to investigate the performance and costs requirements for TEHV to become cost-effective.

Methods

After scoping the decision problem, a workgroup developed the draft CM based on clinical guidelines. This model was compared with existing models for cost-effectiveness of heart valve interventions, identified by systematic literature search. Next, it was discussed with a Delphi panel of cardiothoracic surgeons, cardiologists and a biomedical scientist (n=10).

Results

The CM starts with the valve implantation. If patients survive the intervention, they can remain alive without complications, die from non-valve-related causes or experience a valve-related event. The events are separated in early and late events. After surviving an event, patients can experience another event or die due to non-valve-related causes. Predictors will include age, gender, NYHA class, left ventricular function and diabetes. Costs and quality adjusted life years are to be attached to health conditions to estimate long-term costs and health outcomes.

Conclusions

We developed a CM that will serve as foundation of a decision-analytic model that can estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of TEHV in early development stages. This supports developers in deciding about further development of TEHV and identifies promising interventions that may result in faster take-up in clinical practice by clinicians and reimbursement by payers.

Quality of life among elderly patients undergoing transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement- a model-based longitudinal data analysis

Background

Quality of life (QoL) measurements reported in observational studies are often biased, since patients who failed to improve are more likely to be unable to respond due to death or impairment. In order to observe the development of QoL in patients close to death, we analyzed a set of monthly QoL measurements for a cohort of elderly patients treated for aortic valve stenosis (AS) with special consideration of the effect of distance to death.

Methods

QoL in 169 elderly patients (age ≥ 75 years), treated either with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR; n = 92), surgical aortic-valve replacement (n = 70), or drug-based therapy (n = 7), was evaluated using the standardized EQ-5D questionnaire. Over a two-year period, patients were consulted using monthly telephone interviews or outpatient visits, leading to a total of 2463 time points at which QoL values, New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification and their status of assistance were assessed. Furthermore, post-procedural clinical events and complications were monitored. Linear and ordered logistic regression analyses with random intercept were carried out, taking into account overall trends and distance to death.

Results

QoL measures decreased slightly over time, were temporarily impaired at month 1 after the initial episode of hospitalization and decreased substantially at the end of life with a measurable effect starting at the sixth from last follow-up (month) before death. Many clinical complications (bleeding complications, stroke, acute kidney injury) showed an impairment of QoL measurements, but the inclusion of lagged variables demonstrated medium term (three months) QoL impairments for access site bleeding only. All other complications are associated with event-related impairments that decreased dramatically at the second and third follow-up interviews (month) after event.

Conclusions

Distance to death shows clear effects on QoL and should be taken into account when analyzing QoL measures in the elderly patients treated for aortic valve stenosis.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trial Register Nr. DRKS00000797

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Lower-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation underwent progressive improvements until it became the default therapy for inoperable patients, and a recommended therapy in high-risk operable patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. In the lower-risk patient strata, a currently costly therapy that still has important complications with questionable durability is competing with the established effective and still-improving surgical replacement. This report tries to weigh the clinical evidence, the recent technical improvements, the durability, and the cost-effectiveness claims supporting the adoption of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in intermediate-low risk patients. The importance of appropriate patients’ risk stratification and a more comprehensive approach to estimate that risk are also emphasized in the present report.

Costs and in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in commercial cases using a propensity score matched model

The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital cost and outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVI is an effective treatment option in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at high risk for traditional SAVR. Several studies using trial data or outside United States registry data have addressed TAVI cost issues, although there is a paucity of cost data involving commercial cases in the United States. Using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample files, a propensity score-matched analysis of all commercial TAVI and SAVR cases performed in 2011 was conducted. Overall hospital cost and length of stay, as well as procedural complications, were compared between the 2 matched cohorts: 595 TAVI patients were matched to 1,785 SAVR patients in a 1:3 ratio. There was no difference in mean ($181,912 vs $196,298) or median ($152,993 vs $155,974) hospital cost between TAVI and SAVR (p = 0.60). The TAVI group had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay than the SAVR group (mean 9.76 vs 12.01 days, p <0.001). There was no difference in postprocedural in-hospital death or stroke, but TAVI patients were more likely to have bleeding complications, to have vascular complications, and to require pacemakers. In conclusion, when analyzing in-hospital cost of commercial TAVI and SAVR cases using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data set, TAVI is an economically satisfactory alternative to SAVR and results in an approximately 2-day shorter length of stay during the index hospitalization.

Cost effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with medical management or surgery for patients with aortic stenosis

BACKGROUND

In the symptomatic patient, severe aortic stenosis (AS) has an extremely adverse prognosis in the absence of valve replacement, inevitably leading to deterioration of heart function, heart failure, and death. However, many patients with severe AS, advanced age, and comorbid disease may die with AS rather than from AS. While the results of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are extremely favorable, this technique is not always possible because of either local- or patient-level contraindications. Over the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a new treatment strategy for selected patients with AS. It has now become the standard of care for extremely high-risk (inoperable) patients with AS, and is an appropriate alternative to surgery in high-risk but operable patients. However, whether this intervention is a cost-effective use of resources is open to question

AIM

The aim of this review was to assess the results and quality of the economic evaluations in the current literature and to identify the drivers of cost effectiveness.

METHODS

We performed an electronic data search using four different electronic databases, selecting all studies that included cost-effectiveness data for TAVR compared with either medical management or surgery. Sixteen studies were evaluated for a qualitative and quantitative assessment.

RESULTS

The quality of the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) were generally sufficient. In contrast, we found an extreme heterogeneity of input assumptions with consequent difficulties to generalize the conclusions. However, in the population of patients with severe symptomatic AS and a prohibitive surgical risk, TAVR generally represents a good choice, with incremental costs that are well balanced by the great benefit in terms of quality of life and survival. Nevertheless, the cost effectiveness of this procedure in the real world, particularly in patients with high healthcare costs from other comorbid conditions, may be less favorable. In AS patients with high (but not prohibitive) surgical risk, the choice between TAVR and SAVR is still debatable. Both procedures are comparable in terms of efficacy and safety but the evidence is inconclusive from an economic point of view.

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of this review, it was ascertained that the details of risk evaluation and patient selection will be critical in understanding how improvements in survival can be used to target the use of TAVR to ensure the cost-effective and sustainable use of resources.

An analysis of real-world cost-effectiveness of TAVI in South Africa

Objectives

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the standard of care for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis and is an alternative to conventional surgery for high-risk aortic valve replacement (AVR) patients. There is a positive correlation between severity of pre-operative patients and hospital costs. The aim of this study was to compare empirically derived costs of the two therapies in South Africa.

Methods

The cost-comparison analysis was performed with a MediClinic database including 239 conventional isolated AVR (cAVR) and 75 TAVI cases. All costs are given in 2011 ZAR. The subset of cAVR patients were derived from the relevant and available information in the database and their costs were compared with TAVI costs.

Results

From the 75 available subjects, mean TAVI costs were ZAR 335.5k ± 47.9k, (median ZAR 326.5k) with a mean (median) ICU and hospital length of stay (LoS) of 2.7 (2.0) and 7.6 (6.5) days, respectively. The mean cAVR cost was lower at ZAR 213.9 ± 87.5k (median ZAR 193.6k) but this included the entire population costs (i.e. low to high surgical risk). When estimating cAVR costs, defined by LoS of more than six and 13 days in the ICU and hospital, respectively, and being over 75 years of age, the estimate increased to ZAR 337.9k, which was above the TAVI mean costs. In-hospital mortality was 5.3 and 7.9% for TAVI and the entire cAVR group, respectively. When considering the subset of cAVR patients most likely to be high risk, it increased to 21.4%.

Conclusions

Within the context of limited clinical data we performed the first attempt at cost-effective analysis of TAVI vs cAVR in South Africa. Treatment of aortic stenosis with cAVR in a post hoc defined high-risk patient segment was more expensive than TAVI in South African centres. Despite common perceptions on costs, adoption of TAVI as an alternative, less-invasive therapy that has been clinically proven and recommended by an FDA advisory panel (Partner A) to be at least as effective as cAVR, has a viable economic argument in appropriate patients.

Cost-utility of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for inoperable patients with severe aortic stenosis treated by medical management: a UK cost-utility analysis based on patient-level data from the ADVANCE study

OBJECTIVE

To use patient-level data from the ADVANCE study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) compared to medical management (MM) in patients with severe aortic stenosis from the perspective of the UK NHS.

METHODS

A published decision-analytic model was adapted to include information on TAVI from the ADVANCE study. Patient-level data informed the choice as well as the form of mathematical functions that were used to model all-cause mortality, health-related quality of life and hospitalisations. TAVI-related resource use protocols were based on the ADVANCE study. MM was modelled on publicly available information from the PARTNER-B study. The outcome measures were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) estimated at a range of time horizons with benefits expressed as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Extensive sensitivity/subgroup analyses were undertaken to explore the impact of uncertainty in key clinical areas.

RESULTS

Using a 5-year time horizon, the ICER for the comparison of all ADVANCE to all PARTNER-B patients was £13 943 per QALY gained. For the subset of ADVANCE patients classified as high risk (Logistic EuroSCORE >20%) the ICER was £17 718 per QALY gained). The ICER was below £30 000 per QALY gained in all sensitivity analyses relating to choice of MM data source and alternative modelling approaches for key parameters. When the time horizon was extended to 10 years, all ICERs generated in all analyses were below £20 000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSION

TAVI is highly likely to be a cost-effective treatment for patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Costs of periprocedural complications in patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with severe aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) improves survival when compared with nonsurgical therapy but with higher in-hospital and lifetime costs. Complications associated with TAVR may decrease with greater experience and improved devices, thereby reducing the overall cost of the procedure. Therefore, we sought to estimate the effect of periprocedural complications on in-hospital costs and length of stay of TAVR.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using detailed cost data from 406 TAVR patients enrolled in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) I trial, we developed multivariable models to estimate the incremental cost and length of stay associated with specific periprocedural complications. Attributable costs and length of stay for each complication were calculated by multiplying the independent cost of each event by its frequency in the treatment group. Mean cost for the initial hospitalization was $79 619±40 570 ($50 891 excluding the valve); 49% of patients had ≥1 complication. Seven complications were independently associated with increased hospital costs, with major bleeding, arrhythmia, and death accounting for the largest attributable cost per patient. Renal failure and the need for repeat TAVR, although less frequent, were also associated with substantial incremental and attributable costs. Overall, complications accounted for $12 475 per patient in initial hospital costs and 2.4 days of hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In the PARTNER trial, periprocedural complications were frequent, costly, and accounted for ≈25% of non-implant-related hospital costs. Avoidance of complications should improve the cost-effectiveness of TAVR for inoperable and high-risk patients, but reductions in the cost of uncomplicated TAVR will also be necessary for optimal efficiency.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894.

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter valvular interventions: economic challenges

The unsustainable trend of rising healthcare costs necessitates difficult allocation decisions by governments, policymakers, and physicians. Consequently, recent advances in transcatheter valve therapies require not only clinical evaluation, but also careful economic evaluation. Under current indications, each year there are nearly 18,000 new candidates for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in European countries and an additional 9,200 in North America, with an estimated cost of more than $2 billion per year. Nonetheless, when compared with standard medical therapy for severe aortic stenosis (AS), TAVI leads to gains in life expectancy at an incremental cost that is acceptable by most Western standards. On the other hand, for high-risk (but operable) patients with severe AS, TAVI provides no proven survival advantage and only a transient quality of life benefit compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Thus, for these patients, the cost-effectiveness of TAVI compared with SAVR hinges on the magnitude and duration of the quality of life benefit as well as the relative cost of both procedures. Current data suggest that, for patients who are eligible for transfemoral access, TAVI is economically attractive (or even economically dominant) compared with high-risk SAVR. However, the cost-effectiveness of TAVI for patients who are not suitable for a transfemoral approach appears to be less favourable. Transcatheter mitral valve repair is in an earlier stage of clinical implementation than TAVI. As the evidence for this procedure accumulates, more formal economic analysis should be feasible.

Is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) a cost-effective treatment in patients who are ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement? A systematic review of economic evaluations

OBJECTIVES

Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies often undertake a review of economic evaluations of an intervention during an appraisal in order to identify published estimates of cost-effectiveness, to elicit comparisons with the results of their own model, and to support local reimbursement decision-making. The aim of this research is to determine whether Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) compared to medical management (MM) is cost-effective in patients ineligible for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), across different jurisdictions and country-specific evaluations.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature from 2007-2012 was performed in the MEDLINE, MEDLINE in-process, EMBASE, and UK NHS EED databases according to standard methods, supplemented by a search of published HTA models. All identified publications were reviewed independently by two health economists. The British Medical Journal (BMJ) 35-point checklist for economic evaluations was used to assess study reporting. To compare results, incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were converted to 2012 dollars using purchasing power parity (PPP) techniques.

RESULTS

Six studies were identified representing five reimbursement jurisdictions (England/Wales, Scotland, the US, Canada, and Belgium) and different modeling techniques. The identified economic evaluations represent different willingness-to-pay thresholds, discount rates, medical costs, and healthcare systems. In addition, the model structures, time horizons, and cycle lengths varied. When adjusting for differences in currencies, the ICERs ranged from $27K-$65K per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite notable differences in modeling approach, under the thresholds defined by using either the local threshold value or that recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) threshold value, each study showed that TAVI was likely to be a cost-effective intervention for patients ineligible for SAVR.

Beyond adding years to life: health-related quality-of-life and functional outcomes in patients with severe aortic valve stenosis at high surgical risk undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Aortic valve stenosis (AVS) is the most frequent acquired valvular heart disease in western industrialized countries and its prevalence considerably increases with age. Once becoming symptomatic severe AVS has a very poor prognosis. Progressive and rapid symptom deterioration leads to an impairment of functional status and compromised healthrelated quality-of-life (HrQoL) simultaneously. Until recently, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) has been the only effective treatment option for improving symptoms and prolonging survival. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) emerged as an alternative treatment modality for those patients with severe symptomatic AVS in whom the risk for SAVR is considered prohibitive or too high. TAVR has gained clinical acceptance with almost startling rapidity and has even quickly become the standard of care for the treatment of appropriately selected individuals with inoperable AVS during recent years. Typically, patients currently referred for and treated by TAVR are elderly with a concomitant variable spectrum of multiple comorbidities, disabilities and limited life expectancy. Beyond mortality and morbidity, the assessment of HrQoL is of paramount importance not only to guide patient-centered clinical decision-making but also to judge this new treatment modality. As per current evidence, TAVR significantly improves HrQoL in high-surgical risk patients with severe AVS with sustained effects up to two years when compared with optimal medical care and demonstrates comparable benefits relative to SAVR.

Along with a provision of a detailed overview of the current literature regarding functional and HrQoL outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR, this review article addresses specific considerations of the HrQoL aspect in the elderly patient and finally outlines the implications of HrQoL outcomes for medico-economic deliberations.

Decision-making in transcatheter aortic valve replacement: the impact of frailty in older adults with aortic stenosis

Patients with severe aortic stenosis are commonly elderly and with significant comorbidity. Surgical intervention can improve symptoms and survival in severe aortic stenosis. However, a large proportion of patients do not undergo surgical intervention because they are deemed to be inoperable or too high risk. Over the last decade, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been developed, providing an effective, less-invasive alternative to open cardiac surgery for inoperable or high-risk patients. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of risk assessment in TAVR. Specifically, this article reviews the epidemiology of aortic stenosis, describes the risks and benefits of TAVR across multiple outcome measures, explores frailty and other elderly risk factors as metrics for improved risk assessment and discusses the application of improved risk assessment in TAVR decisions.

EVEREST II high risk study based UK cost-effectiveness analysis of MitraClip® in patients with severe mitral regurgitation ineligible for conventional repair/replacement surgery

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of MitraClip, an interventional procedure for patients with chronic severe mitral regurgitation.

METHODS

A decision analytic model with a lifetime horizon was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of MitraClip vs conventional medical management in patients with severe mitral regurgitation, ineligible for surgery. The analysis was performed from a UK NHS perspective and the estimates for mortality, adverse events, and cross-sectional NYHA class were obtained from the EVEREST II High Risk Study (HRS). Utility decrements were obtained from a heath technology assessment on Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy, while unit costs were obtained from national databases. The concept model was clinically validated. Costs (2011 £UK) and benefits were discounted at an annual rate of 3.5%.

RESULTS

Compared to medical management, over 2- and 10-year periods MitraClip had incremental Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains of 0.48 and 2.04, respectively. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratios for MitraClip at 2 and 10 years are £52,947 and £14,800 per QALY gained. Overall, the model was most sensitive to the choice of time horizon, the discount rate applied to benefits, the starting age of cohort, the utility decrement associated with NYHA II, and cost of the MitraClip procedure. The model was insensitive to changes in all other parameters. MitraClip was also found to be cost-effective, regardless of the modelling approach, and insensitive to the key assumptions of the procedure cost.

STUDY LIMITATIONS

The primary limitation of the analysis is the reliance on aggregate data from a modestly sized non-randomized study with a short-term follow-up period. Aligned to this was the need to extrapolate survival well beyond the study period in order to generate meaningful results. The impact of both of these limitations was explored via extensive sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Compared to medical management, MitraClip is a cost-effective interventional procedure at conventional threshold values.

Basic Principles of Health Economics Applied - How to Assess if Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation is Worth the Investment

This article attempts to present some highlights from the rich economic literature pertaining to interventional cardiology and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). There are currently more questions than answers, not surprisingly given the pace of technological change in interventional cardiology. For clinicians who work in a strictly regulated environment and have limited control over their use of medical technologies, this article will hopefully shed some light on the motives for policy decisions. For clinicians who make decisions on the resources used to treat their patients, it aims to provide the means of looking for evidence that will allow for informed decisions from both clinical and economic perspectives.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: restoring the qualities of life in old age

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a tremendous therapeutic advance for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high-surgical risk. Since TAVI-treated patients are elderly with multiple co-existing conditions, limited life expectancy and disproportionate health-care expenditures, the aspect of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits becomes of fundamental importance. Based on recent evidence, TAVI appears to improve significantly HRQoL measures compared with optimal standard care, which are restored to age-adjusted population norms over time.