Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in the intermediate surgical risk population

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.

Incorporating economic analysis in interventional cardiology research

Evaluative research in interventional cardiology has focused on clinical and technical outcomes. Inclusion of economic data can enhance evaluative research by quantifying the relative economic burden incurred by different therapies. When combined with clinical outcomes, cost data can provide a measure of value (e.g., marginal cost-effectiveness). In some select situations, cost data can also be used as surrogates for complexity of care and morbidity. In this narrative review, we aim to provide a framework for the application of cost data in clinical trials and observational research, detailing how to incorporate this kind of data into interventional cardiology research.

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis of intermediate surgical risk in Singapore

Objective

The objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients with severe aortic stenosis with intermediate surgical risk in Singapore.

Methods

A de novo Markov model with three health states – stroke with long-term sequelae, no stroke, and death – was developed and simulated using Monte Carlo simulations with 10,000 iterations over a five-year time horizon from the Singapore healthcare system perspective. A 3% annual discount rate for costs and outcomes and monthly cycle lengths were used. By applying the longest available published clinical evidence, simulated patients received either TAVI or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and were at risk of adverse events (AEs) such as moderate-to-severe paravalvular aortic regurgitation (PAR).

Results

When five-year PARTNER 2A data was applied, base-case analyses showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for TAVI compared to SAVR was US$315,760 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The high ICER was due to high incremental implantation and procedure costs of TAVI compared to SAVR, and marginal improvement of 0.10 QALYs as simulated mortality of TAVI exceeded SAVR at 3.75 years post-implantation. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICERs were most sensitive to cost of PAR, utility values of SAVR patients, and cost of TAVI and SAVR implants and procedures. When disutilities for AEs were additionally applied, the ICER decreased to US$300,070 per QALY gained. TAVI was dominated by SAVR when the time horizon increased to 20 years. Clinical outcomes projected from one-year PARTNER S3i data further reduced the ICER to US$86,337 per QALY gained for TAVI, assuming early all-cause mortality benefits from TAVI continued to persist. This assumption was undermined when longer term data showed that TAVI’s early mortality benefits diminished at five years.

Limitations and conclusion

TAVI is unlikely to be cost-effective in intermediate surgical-risk patients compared to SAVR in Singapore.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08369-5.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Procedure Compared With Surgery in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Low Risk of Surgical Mortality in France

OBJECTIVES

The clinical and cost-saving benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis who are at high or intermediate risk of surgical mortality are supported by a growing evidence base. The PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial) demonstrated clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in selected patients at low risk of surgical mortality. This study uses PARTNER 3 outcomes in combination with a French national hospital claim database to inform a cost-utility model and examine the cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a low-risk population.

METHODS

A 2-stage cost-utility analysis was developed to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR. Early adverse events associated with TAVI were captured using the PARTNER 3 data set. These data fed into a Markov model that captured longer-term outcomes of patients, after TAVI or SAVR intervention.

RESULTS

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 offers meaningful benefits over SAVR in providing both cost saving (€12 742 per patient) and generating greater quality-adjusted life-years (0.89 per patient). These results are robust with TAVI with SAPIEN 3 remaining dominant across several scenarios and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

This model demonstrated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 was dominant compared with SAVR in the treatment of patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at low risk of surgical mortality. These findings should help policy makers in developing informed approaches to intervention selection for this patient population.

Budget impact analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low, intermediate, and high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in Saudi Arabia

AIMS

A budget impact analysis (BIA) comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with SAPIEN 3 and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis among patients of low, intermediate, and high surgical risk from the perspective of the public and private sectors in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed with six states to calculate the budget impact from time of either TAVR or SAVR intervention up to 5 years. We compared the budget effects of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), major/disabling stroke (MDS), and surgical site infections (SSI). One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed on cost and probability inputs.

RESULTS

Analysis of the base case parameters suggests TAVR vs. SAVR is budget saving among intermediate- and high-risk patients at 5 years. TAVR vs. SAVR for low surgical risk reaches budget neutrality at 5 years. TAVR is associated with higher costs for PPI and budget savings for MDS, AF, and SSI. TAVR also results in savings for non-device costs due to fewer human resource uses and shorter procedure durations. Similarly, TAVR is associated with cost savings due to shorter hospital intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU stays. The OWSA consistently revealed that SAVR non-device theater costs were the leading cost driver across all surgical risk levels.

LIMITATIONS

This is the first budget impact analysis of its kind in Saudi Arabia and future research is needed on costing TAVR and SAVR procedures, the economic impact of SSI, and corroborating estimates for the public and private sectors.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers, providers, and policymakers increasingly turn to results of BIA to inform technologies affordability decisions. TAVR with SAPIEN 3 appears to generate savings vs. SAVR from a budget impact perspective across various surgical risk levels in Saudi Arabia.

The cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation: exploring the Italian National Health System perspective and different patient risk groups

OBJECTIVES

To assess the cost-effectiveness (CE) of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in Italy, considering patient groups with different surgical risk.

METHODS

A Markov model with a 1-month cycle length, comprising eight different health states, defined by the New York Heart Association functional classes (NYHA I-IV), with and without stroke plus death, was used to estimate the CE of TAVI for intermediate-, high-risk and inoperable patients considering surgical aortic valve replacement or medical treatment as comparators according to the patient group. The Italian National Health System perspective and 15-year time horizon were considered. In the base-case analysis, effectiveness data were retrieved from published efficacy data and total direct costs (euros) were estimated from national tariffs. A scenario analysis considering a micro-costing approach to estimate procedural costs was also considered. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed both in terms of costs per life years gained (LYG) and costs per quality adjusted life years (QALY). All outcomes and costs were discounted at 3% per annum. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed to assess robustness of results.

RESULTS

Over a 15-year time horizon, the higher acquisition costs for TAVI were partially offset in all risk groups because of its effectiveness and safety profile. ICERs were €8338/QALY, €11,209/QALY and €10,133/QALY, respectively, for intermediate-, high-risk and inoperable patients. ICER values were slightly higher in the scenario analysis. PSA suggested consistency of results.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI would be considered cost-effective at frequently cited willingness-to-pay thresholds; further studies could clarify the CE of TAVI in real-life scenarios.

Current treatment of symptomatic aortic stenosis in elderly patients: Do risk scores really matter after 80 years of age?

BACKGROUND

According to the guidelines, surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is recommended in patients at low surgical risk (EuroSCORE II<4%), whereas for other patients, the decision between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgery should be made by the Heart Team, with TAVI being favoured in elderly patients.

AIM

The RAC prospective multicentre survey assessed the respective contributions of age and surgical risk scores in therapeutic decision making in elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis.

METHODS

In September and October 2016, 1049 consecutive patients aged ≥ 75 years were included in 32 centres with on-site TAVI and surgical facilities. The primary endpoint was the decision between medical management, TAVI or SAVR.

RESULTS

Mean age was 84±5 years and 53% of patients were female. The surgical risk was classified as high (EuroSCORE II>8%) in 18% of patients, intermediate (EuroSCORE II 4-8%) in 34% and low (EuroSCORE II≤4%) in 48%. TAVI was preferred in 71% of patients, SAVR in 19% and medical treatment in 10%. The choice of TAVI over SAVR was associated with older age (P<0.0001) and a higher EuroSCORE II (P=0.008). However, the weight of EuroSCORE II in therapeutic decision making markedly decreased after the age of 80 years. Indeed, 77% of patients aged ≥ 80 years were referred for TAVI, despite a low estimated surgical risk.

CONCLUSIONS

The impact of risk scores depends strongly on age, and decreases considerably after 80 years, most patients being referred for TAVI, independent of their estimated surgical risk. Despite medical advancements, 10% of patients were still denied any intervention.

Sutureless versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement: A multicenter analysis of "real-world" data

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggested that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) may be indicated also for low-risk patients. However, robust evidence is still lacking, particularly regarding valve performance at follow-up that confers a limitation to its use in young patients. Moreover, a literature gap exists in terms of 'real-world' data analysis. The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of sutureless aortic valve replacement (SuAVR) versus transfemoral TAVR.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrieved from a centralized database of nine cardiac surgery centers between 2010 and 2018. Follow-up was completed in June 2019. A propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Patients in the TAVR group (n=1002) were older and with more comorbidities than SuAVR patients (n=443). The PSM analysis generated 172 pairs. No differences were recorded between groups in 30-day mortality [SuAVR vs TAVR: n=7 (4%) vs n=5 (2.9%); p=0.7] and need for pacemaker implant [n=10 (5.8%) vs n=20 (11.6%); p=0.1], but costs were lower in the SuAVR group (20486.6±4188€ vs 24181.5±3632€; p<0.01). Mean follow-up was 1304±660 days. SuAVR patients had a significantly higher probability of survival than TAVR patients (no. of fatal events: 22 vs 74; p<0.014). Median follow-up was 2231 days and 2394 days in the SuAVR and TAVR group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The treatment of aortic valve stenosis with surgical sutureless or transcatheter prostheses is safe and effective. By comparing the two approaches, patients who can undergo surgery after heart team evaluation show longer lasting results and a more favorable cost ratio.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Public and Private Hospital Settings: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare short- and long-term outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in the public and private hospital setting.

DESIGN

Propensity-matched, retrospective analysis of a prospective registry.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVI at a tertiary public hospital (n=507) and an experienced private hospital (n=436).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Patients that underwent TAVI in the public hospital were younger than patients in the private hospital (82±8 years vs 84±6 years, p<0.001), with lower estimated short-term mortality risk (Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality [STS-PROM] score >4.0%: 43% vs 56%, p<0.001). There was no difference between public and private hospitals in 30-day mortality (1.5% vs 1.2%, p=1.0), and the rate of complications was similar. Long-term survival was similar in propensity-matched public (n=344) and private (n=344) patient cohorts. The 1-year, 2-year, 5-year and 7-year survival rates were 95%, 90%, 67% and 47% in public patients, and 92%, 86%, 67% and 51% in private patients (p=0.94). In multivariable analysis, the hospital setting was not a predictor of mortality.

CONCLUSION

Despite increased age and predicted mortality in private hospital patients, short- and long-term outcomes after TAVI were comparable between public and private hospital settings. This study demonstrates the feasibility of performing TAVI in a private hospital with a dedicated and experienced team and questions the current restricted access to TAVI in the private sector.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis (SAVR): A Cost-Comparison Study

BACKGROUND

Comparative costing studies using real-world data stratified by patient case-mix, are valuable to decision makers for making reimbursement decisions of new interventions. This study evaluated real-world hospital admissions and short-term costs of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with aortic stenosis, stratified by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk scores.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with a principal diagnosis of aortic stenosis who underwent isolated valve replacement at a single tertiary hospital, January 2012-December 2017. Patients were followed-up for 30 days post-procedure or until hospital discharge if index hospitalisation was greater than 30 days. Intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (days), and costs in 2018 Australian dollars for the index procedure and 30-day follow-up were assessed. Multivariable generalised linear and two-part models with gamma distribution and log link function adjusting for Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) risk group and key sociodemographic characteristics were used.

RESULTS

Of 488 patients, 61% males, median age 78 years (IQR 14 years), 221 (45%) received transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVI) and 267 (55%) received surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). STS risk scores were low (28%), intermediate (46%) and high (26%) for TAVI patients, and low (85%), intermediate (12%) and high (3%) for SAVR patients. When adjusted, TAVI length of stay was 57% shorter than SAVR (95% CI 31-83%, p<0.001) for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 64% shorter (95% CI 47-81%, p<0.001) for hospital admissions. TAVI costs were 13% lower than SAVR (95% CI 4-22%, p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

This data suggests short-term health care costs are lower for patients with aortic stenosis undergoing TAVI than SAVR. A further roll-out of the TAVI program in hospitals across Australia may result in savings to the health system.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have shown that transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for treatment of low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). However, the cost-effectiveness of TAVI in this population is unknown. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of both balloon-expandable and self-expanding TAVI compared to SAVR in patients with severe AS at low operative risk.

METHODS

We developed a Markov model comparing TAVI to SAVR over a lifetime horizon. Key data inputs were drawn from the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) 3 trial for balloon-expandable TAVI and the Evolut Low-Risk trial for self-expanding TAVI. Costs were obtained from Australian sources. The perspective was that of the Australian health care system.

RESULTS

Although procedural costs were higher for TAVI compared to SAVR, these were offset by a shorter length of hospitalisation and lower acute complication costs in the TAVI group. Over a lifetime horizon, balloon-expandable TAVI was associated with increased costs of A$702 compared to SAVR, and increased quality-adjusted survival by 0.20 years, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of A$3,521 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved. Self-expanding TAVI was associated with lower lifetime costs compared to SAVR, and increased quality-adjusted survival by 0.08 years, and was therefore economically dominant. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, balloon-expandable TAVI was cost-effective in 78% of iterations (at a cost-effectiveness threshold of A$50,000 per QALY gained) and self-expanding TAVI was cost-effective in 70% of iterations.

CONCLUSIONS

Among low-risk AS patients, both balloon-expandable and self-expanding TAVI are likely to be cost-effective relative to SAVR.