Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low surgical risk aortic stenosis patients

Cost-utility analysis of TAVI compared with surgery in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

There is growing evidence to support the benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS) who are at high- or intermediate-risk of surgical mortality. The PARTNER 3 trial showed clinical benefits with SAPIEN 3 TAVI compared with SAVR in patients at low risk of surgical mortality. Whether TAVI is also cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients in the Dutch healthcare system remains uncertain. This article presents an analysis using PARTNER 3 outcomes and costs data from the Netherlands to inform a cost-utility model and examine cost implications of TAVI over SAVR in a Dutch low-risk population.

METHODS

A two-stage cost-utility analysis was performed using a published and validated health economic model based on adverse events with both TAVI and SAVR interventions from a published randomized low risk trial dataset, and a Markov model that captured lifetime healthcare costs and patient outcomes post-intervention. The model was adapted using Netherlands-specific cost data to assess the cost-effectiveness of TAVI and SAVR. Uncertainty was addressed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

TAVI generated 0.89 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) at a €4742 increase in costs per patient compared with SAVR over a lifetime time horizon, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5346 per QALY gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm robust results, with TAVI remaining cost-effective across several sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the model results, compared with SAVR, TAVI with SAPIEN 3 appears cost-effective for the treatment of Dutch patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. Qualitative data suggest broader societal benefits are likely and these findings could be used to optimize appropriate intervention selection for this patient population.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis patients at low surgical mortality risk: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device has recently shown significant clinical benefits, compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in patients at low risk for surgical mortality (PARTNER 3 trial, NCT02675114). Currently in Belgium, TAVI use is restricted to high-risk or inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS). This cost-utility analysis aimed to assess whether TAVI with SAPIEN 3 could lead to potential cost-savings compared with SAVR, in the low-risk sSAS population in Belgium.

METHODS

A previously published, two-stage, Markov-based cost-utility model was used. Clinical outcomes were captured using data from PARTNER 3 and the model was adapted for the Belgian context using cost data from the perspective of the Belgian National Healthcare System, indexed to 2022. A lifetime horizon was chosen. The model outputs included changes in direct healthcare costs, survival and health-related quality of life using TAVI versus SAVR.

RESULTS

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 provides meaningful clinical and cost benefits over SAVR, in terms of an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.94 and cost-saving of €3 013 per patient. While initial procedure costs were higher for TAVI compared with SAVR, costs related to rehabilitation, disabling stroke, treated atrial fibrillation, and rehospitalization were lower. The cost-effectiveness of TAVI over SAVR remained robust in sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 may offer a meaningful alternative intervention to SAVR in Belgian low-risk patients with sSAS, showing both clinical benefits and cost savings associated with post-procedure patient management.

Health-related quality of life following TAVI or cardiac surgery in patients at intermediate and low risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Recent randomised trials have shown that clinical outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are non-inferior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis at intermediate to low risk. Health-related quality of life (HrQoL) outcomes in these patient groups remain uncertain. A systematic search of the literature was conducted that included nine trials and 11,295 patients. Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), a heart-failure-specific measure and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) (a generic health status tool) changes were the primary outcomes. New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification was the secondary outcome. Improvement in KCCQ scores was greater with TAVI (mean difference (MD)=13.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.67-15.46, p<0.001) at 1 month, as was the improvement in EQ-5D (MD=0.07, 95% CI 0.05-0.08, p<0.001). There was no difference in KCCQ (MD=1.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 2.21, p=0.08) or EQ-5D (MD=-0.01, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.01), p=0.37) at 12 months. NYHA functional class 3/4 was lower in patients undergoing TAVI at 1 month (MD=0.51, 95% CI 0.34-0.78, p=0.002), but there was no difference at 12 months (MD=1.10; 95% CI 0.87-1.38, p=0.43). Overall, TAVI offers early benefit in HRQoL outcomes compared with SAVR, but they are equivalent at 12 months.

Early Safety and Performance of the Premounted Dry-Pericardium Vienna Self-Expandable Transcatheter Aortic Valve System: 30-Day Outcomes of the First-in-Human VIVA Feasibility Study

The purpose of this first-in-human (FIH) study was to determine the safety and feasibility of the transfemoral premounted dry-pericardium Vienna Self-Expandable Supra-Annular Aortic Valve System. This novel system is repositionable and retrievable and comes already premounted on the delivery system, eliminating the need for assembly and crimping of the device before valve implantation. This is a prospective, nonrandomized, single-arm, single-center, first-stage FIH feasibility study, which will be followed by a second-stage pivotal, multicenter, multinational study in symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis. The first-stage FIH study evaluated the safety and feasibility of the device in 10 patients with severe aortic stenosis based on recommendations by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 for transcatheter aortic valve implantations. The mean patient age was 79 ± 5 years, 60% were male, and all patients were in New York Heart Association functional class II to III. The primary safety end point was successful when all patients were alive at 30-day follow-up. Device and technical success were observed in all patients. Two patients had a stroke, 1 of which occurred 5 days after the procedure. New permanent pacemakers were implanted in 2 patients (22.2%), of which only 1 was because of complete heart block. Only 1 patient (10%) had moderate paravalvular leak at 30 days. After the procedure, the mean aortic valve gradient decreased from 48.7 ± 10.8 mm Hg to 8.8 ± 4.3 mm Hg. In conclusion, this FIH feasibility study demonstrates successful procedural feasibility, with no 30-day mortality and favorable valve hemodynamic performance, leading to an improvement in quality of life. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04861805.

Estimation of Value-Based Price for 48 High-Technology Medical Devices

Value-based price is estimated quite frequently for medicines, but its application to medical devices is scarce. While some reports have been published in which this parameter has occasionally been determined for devices, no large-scale application has yet been reported. Our objective was to pursue a systematic analysis of the literature published on value-based prices of medical devices. Pertinent papers were selected upon the criterion that the value-based price was reported for the device examined. The real prices of the devices were compared with their values of value-based price and the ratios between real price versus value-based price were calculated. A total of 239 economic articles focused on high-technology medical devices were selected from a standard PubMed search. Among these, the proportion of analyses unsuitable for value-based price estimation was high (191/239; 80%), whereas adequate clinical and economic information for estimating this parameter was available in 48 cases (20%). Standard equations of cost-effectiveness were applied. The value-based price was determined according to a willingness-to-pay threshold of 60,000 € per quality-adjusted life year. Real prices of devices were compared with the corresponding estimates of value-based prices. From each analysis, we extracted also the value of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Our final dataset included 47 analyses because one was published twice. There were five analyses in which the ICER could be estimated for the treatment, but not for the device. In the dataset of 42 analyses with complete information, 36 out of 42 devices (86%) were found to have an ICER lower than the pre-specified threshold (favorable ICER). Three ICERs were borderline. A separate analysis was conducted on the other three devices that showed an ICER substantially greater than the threshold (unfavorable ICER). Regarding value-based prices, the values of real price were appreciably lower than the corresponding value-based price in 36 cases (86%). For three devices, the real price was substantially higher than the value-based price. In the remaining three cases, real prices and value-based prices were very similar. To our knowledge, this is the first experience in which a systematic analysis of the literature has been focused on the application of value-based pricing in the field of high-technology devices. Our results are encouraging and suggest a wider application of cost-effectiveness in this field.

Cost-Effectiveness of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in German Severe Aortic Stenosis Patients at Low Surgical Mortality Risk

INTRODUCTION

In the randomized PARTNER 3 trial, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device significantly reduced a composite of all-cause death, stroke, and rehospitalization, compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low risk of surgical mortality. Furthermore, TAVI has been shown to be cost-effective in low-risk patients, compared with SAVR, in a number of countries. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of TAVI with SAPIEN 3 versus SAVR in Germany.

METHODS

A previously published two-stage Markov-based model that captured clinical outcomes from the PARTNER 3 trial was adapted for the German context using the German Statutory Health Insurance perspective. The model had a lifetime horizon. The cost-utility analysis estimated changes in direct healthcare costs as well as survival and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR.

RESULTS

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by + 0.72 at an increased cost of €8664 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness/QALY ratio was €12,037, which fell below that of other cardiovascular interventions in use in Germany. The cost-effectiveness of TAVI over SAVR remained robust across multiple challenging scenarios and was driven by lower longer-term management costs compared with SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI with SAPIEN 3 appears to be a clinically meaningful, cost-effective treatment option over SAVR for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low risk for surgical mortality in Germany.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT02675114.

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.

Acute Decompensated Aortic Stenosis: State of the Art Review

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a progressive disease that carries a poor prognosis. Patients are managed conservatively until satisfying an indication for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) based on AS severity and the presence of symptoms or adverse impact on the myocardium. Up to 1 in 3 TAVIs are performed for patients with acute symptoms of dyspnoea at rest, angina, and/or syncope - termed acute decompensated aortic stenosis (ADAS) and require urgent aortic valve replacement. These patients have longer hospital length of stay, undergo physical deconditioning, have a higher rate of acute kidney injury and mortality compared to stable patients with less severe symptoms. There is an urgent need to prevent ADAS and to deliver pathways to manage and improve ADAS-related outcomes. We provide here a contemporary review on epidemiological and pathophysiological aspects of ADAS, with a focus on the impact of ADAS from clinical and economic perspectives. We will offer also a global overview of the available evidence for treatment of ADAS and with priorities suggested for addressing current gaps in the literature and unmet clinical needs to improve outcomes for AS patients.

A European update on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in the COVID era

Minimally invasive approaches for aortic valve replacement are now at the forefront of pathological aortic valve treatment. New trials show comparability of these devices to existing therapies, not only in high-risk surgical cohorts but also in low-risk and intermediate-risk cohorts. This review provides vital clinical and anatomical background to aortic valvular disease treatment guidelines, while also providing an update on transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) devices in Europe, their interventional trials and associated complications.