Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared With Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis

Trends and predictors of inflation-adjusted costs in transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement in a nationally representative sample

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement has become an accepted alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement. We examined the trends and predictors in inflation-adjusted costs of transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement.

METHODS

National Inpatient Sample identified patients who underwent aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, codes. Hospitalization costs were inflation-adjusted using the Federal Reserve's consumer price index to reflect current valuation. Outcomes of interest were unadjusted trend in annual cost for each procedure and predictors of in-patient cost. Generalized linear models with a log link function identified predictors of adjusted costs. Interaction terms determined where cost predictors were different by operation type.

RESULTS

Between 2011 and 2019, the mean annual inflation-adjusted cost of surgical aortic valve replacement increased from $62,853 to $63,743, in contrast to decreasing cost of transcatheter aortic valve replacement from $64,913 to $56,042 ($1,854 per year; P = .004). Significant independent predictors of patient-level cost included operation type (transcatheter aortic valve replacement associated with $9,625 increase; P < .001), incidence of in-hospital mortality ($28,836 increase; P < .001), elective status ($2,410 decrease; P < .001), Elixhauser Index ($995 increase; P < .001), and postoperative length of stay ($2,014 per day increase; P < .001). Compared to discharges with Medicare, discharges with private insurance and Medicaid paid $736 less (P = .004) and $1,863 less (P = .01), respectively. Increasing hospital volume was a significant predictor of decreasing patient level cost (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Annual cost of transcatheter aortic valve replacement has decreased significantly and has been a more cost-effective modality compared to surgical aortic valve replacement since 2017. Predictors of patient-level costs allow for mindful preparation of healthcare systems for aortic valve replacement.

The Impact of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation on Health Care Costs and Clinical Outcomes Based on Frailty Risk: A Nationwide Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is preferred for treating severe aortic stenosis in older, frail populations, yet the impact of frailty on economic and clinical outcomes of TAVI is not well studied.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 2175 TAVI patients from 2015 to 2019, using Korea's National Health Insurance Service database, stratifying patients into low, intermediate, and high-frailty groups, using the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS). Health care costs, admissions, and total length of hospitalization were analyzed using Wilcoxon-rank test 12 months pre- and post-TAVI. Composite endpoint of death, stroke, and major bleeding, with individual outcomes, were compared using χ2 tests and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Mean age was 80.2 years, and 47.3% were male; 747 (34.3%) were low frailty, 1159 (53.3%) were moderate frailty, and 269 (12.4%) were high frailty. After TAVI, medical costs decreased in the intermediate- (pre-TAVI: 2,269,000 KRW [$1668 USD], post-TAVI: 1,607,000 KRW [$1181 USD]; P < 0.001) and high-frailty groups (pre-TAVI: 3,949,000 KRW [$2904 USD], post-TAVI: 2,188,000 KRW [$1609 USD]; P < 0.001). All frailty groups had shorter length of hospital stay post-TAVI (26 to 21 days in the low-frailty, 44 to 31 days in the intermediate-frailty, and 65 to 41 days in the high-frailty group; all P <0.001). The composite outcome was higher in the frailer groups (27.8% in the low-frailty vs 31.5% in the intermediate-frailty vs 37.9% in the high-frailty group; P = 0.008). All groups showed comparable rates of cardiovascular death, stroke, or bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVI is clinically viable and cost-saving treatment option for frail patients with severe aortic stenosis.

Cost-effective analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis: A prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) does not benefit all patients. We performed a prospective multicenter study to investigate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR in a Japanese cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We prospectively enrolled 110 symptomatic patients with severe AS who underwent TAVR from five institutions. The quality of life measurement (QOL) was performed for each patient before and at 6 months after TAVR. Patients without an improvement in QOL at 6 months after TAVR were defined as non-responders. Pre-TAVR higher QOL, higher clinical frailty scale predicted the non-responders. Three models, 1) conservative treatment for all patients strategy, 2) TAVR for all patients strategy, and 3) TAVR for a selected patient strategy who is expected to be a responder, were simulated. Lifetime cost-effectiveness was estimated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In comparison to conservative therapy for all patients, ICER was estimated to be 5,765,800 yen/QALY for TAVR for all patients and 2,342,175 yen/QALY for TAVR for selected patient strategy patients, which is less than the commonly accepted ICER threshold of 5,000,000 yen/QALY.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR for selected patient strategy model is more cost-effective than TAVR for all patient strategy without reducing QOL in the Japanese healthcare system. TAVR for selected patient strategy has potential benefit for optimizing the TAVR treatment in patients with high frailty and may direct our resources toward beneficial interventions.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR): A Review on the Length of Stay, Cost, Comorbidities, and Procedural Complications

This review provides an in-depth analysis of the effect of length of stay (LOS), comorbidities, and procedural complications on the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We found that the average LOS was shorter for patients undergoing TAVR, contributing to lower average costs associated with the procedure, although the LOS varied between patients due to the severity of illness and comorbidities present. TAVR has also been found to improve the quality of life for patients receiving aortic valve replacement compared to SAVR. Although TAVR has a lower rate of most post-operative complications caused by SAVR, such as bleeding and cardiac complications, TAVR shows an increased rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation due to mechanical trauma on the heart's conduction system. In addition, our findings suggest that the cost-effectiveness of each procedure varies based on the types of valve, the patient history of other medical conditions, and the procedural methods. Our findings show that TAVR is preferred over SAVR in terms of cost-effectiveness across a variety of patients with other coexisting medical conditions, including cancer, advanced kidney disease, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, and bundle branch block. TAVR also appears to be superior to SAVR with fewer post-operative complications. However, TAVR appears to have a higher rate of PPM implantation rates as compared to SAVR. The comorbidities of the valve recipient must be considered when deciding whether to use TAVR or SAVR as cost-effectiveness varies with the patient background.

A Review of the Cost Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR)

The cost of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been studied in the context of high-risk or specific comorbidity populations; this paper provides a comprehensive overview of broader patient populations' outcomes and costs with TAVR in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In the past, SAVR had been the more cost-effective option than TAVR, but in recent years, TAVR has been becoming more cost-effective.Though the cost of TAVR can vary due to several factors the major focus of this review will focus on the surgical technique, medicare reimbursements, insertion point, and varying risk populations. In conclusion, the price of TAVR is declining as more cost-efficient valves arrive on the market. Climbing healthcare costs play a significant role in clinical decisions when deciding on which procedures are most cost-effective for the patient and healthcare system. The declining price of TAVR could lead to the preference of TAVR over SAVR for both low-risk and high-risk aortic stenosis patients.

Surgical vs. transcatheter aortic valve replacement in patients over 75 years with aortic stenosis: sociodemographic profile, clinical characteristics, quality of life and functionality

Background

Aortic valve stenosis (AVS) affects 25% of the population over 65 years. At present, there is no curative medical treatment for AVS and therefore the surgical approach, consisting of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), is the treatment of choice.

Methodology

The aim of this study was to analyze the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, quality of life and functionality of a sample of patients with AVS over 75 years of age, who underwent TAVR or SAVR, applying standard clinical practice. A prospective multicenter observational study was conducted in two hospitals of the Spanish National Health System. Data were collected at baseline, 1, 6 months and 1 year.

Results

In total, 227 participants were included, with a mean age of 80.6 [SD 4.1]. Statistically significant differences were found in terms of quality of life, which was higher at 1 year in patients who underwent SAVR. In terms of functionality, SAVR patients obtained a better score (p < 0.01). However, patients who underwent TAVR began with a worse baseline situation and managed to increase their quality of life and functionality after 1 year of follow-up.

Conclusion

The individualized choice of TAVR or SAVR in patients with AVS improves patients' quality of life and function. Moreover, the TAVR procedure in patients with a worse baseline situation and a high surgical risk achieved a similar increase in quality of life and functionality compared to patients undergoing SAVR with a better baseline situation.

Improving access to transcatheter aortic valve implantation across Europe by restructuring cardiovascular services: An expert council consensus statement

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is recommended for a growing range of patients with severe aortic stenosis in the European Society of Cardiology and European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) 2021 Guidelines update. However, guideline implementation programs are needed to ensure the application of clinical recommendations which will favorably influence disease outcomes. An Expert Council was convened to identify whether cardiology services across Europe are set up to address the growing needs of patients with severe aortic stenosis for increased access to TAVI by identifying the key challenges faced in growing TAVI programs and mapping associated solutions. Wide variation exists across Europe in terms of TAVI availability and capacity to deliver the increased demand for TAVI in different countries. The recommendations of this Expert Council focus on the short-to-medium-term aspects where the most immediate, actionable impact can be achieved. The focus on improving procedural efficiency and optimizing the patient pathway via clinical practice and patient management demonstrates how to mitigate the current major issues of shortfall in catheterization laboratory, workforce, and bed capacity. Procedural efficiencies may be achieved through steps including streamlined patient assessment, the benchmarking of standards for minimalist procedures, standardized approaches around patient monitoring and conduction issues, and the implementation of nurse specialists and dedicated TAVI coordinators to manage organization, logistics, and early mobilization. Increased collaboration with wider stakeholders within institutions will support successful TAVI uptake and improve patient and economic outcomes. Further, increased education, collaboration, and partnership between cardiology centers will facilitate sharing of expertise and best clinical practice.

Mediators of Improvement in TAVR Outcomes Over Time: Insights From the STS-ACC TVT Registry

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, there has been substantial improvement in outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Many patient and procedural factors have also changed over that time, making it challenging to untangle the drivers of those improvements.

METHODS

Among patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement from 2012 to 2018 within the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapies Registry, we examined the relative contribution of changes in patient factors, device modifications, improving experience/skill, and advances in periprocedural care to the observed improvement in outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Mediator clusters included demographics, noncardiovascular comorbidities, cardiovascular comorbidities, device-related factors, and nondevice-related procedural factors. Using logistic regression, we serially adjusted for the mediator clusters to examine the contribution of each to the observed improvement in outcomes over time.

RESULTS

Among 161 196 patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement at 596 sites, outcomes improved steadily from 2012 to 2018, including 30-day mortality (6.7% to 2.4%), 30-day composite adverse events (25.3% to 10.5%), and 1-year mortality (19.9% to 10.1%; all P<0.001). In sequential models, the unadjusted odds ratio for 30-day mortality was 0.82 per year (95% CI, 0.80-0.84), which was progressively attenuated with addition of each covariate cluster. Most of the improvement was explained by device factors and nondevice procedural factors. Results were similar for 30-day composite adverse events, although the observed temporal improvement was not fully explained by measured factors, suggesting improved technical skill as an additional mediator. In contrast to 30-day outcomes, each cluster of patient and procedural factors contributed similarly to the temporal improvement in 1-year mortality, indicating a greater impact of patient factors on longer-term outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While US patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement have become younger, healthier, and lower risk over time, the most important factors contributing to improvements in short-term outcomes relate to advances in device technology and procedural factors, whereas changing patient characteristics had a greater impact on improvement in 1-year outcomes.

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.

Economic Outcomes of Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis and Low Surgical Risk: Results from the PARTNER 3 Trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS

Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, -$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, -0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective.

Impact of Long-Term Steroid Use on the Disposition of Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Retrospective Nationwide Sample Analysis

Background Chronic steroid use is debilitating to health, but, in some cases, it is necessary. We examined the effect of chronic steroid use on the discharge disposition of people undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Methods We queried the National Inpatient Sample Database (NIS) from 2016 to 2019. We identified patients with current chronic steroid use with the International Classification of Diseases for the Tenth (ICD-10) code Z7952. Furthermore, we used the ICD-10 procedure codes for TAVR 02RF3. Outcomes were the length of hospitalization (LOS), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), disposition, in-hospital mortality, and total hospital charges (THC).  Results Between 2016 and 2019, we identified 44,200 TAVR hospitalizations, and 382,497 were on current long-term steroid therapy. Of these, 934 had current chronic steroid use and underwent TAVR (STEROID) with a mean age of 78 (SD=8.4). About 50% were female, 89% were Whites, 3.7% were Blacks, 4.2% were Hispanics, and 1.3% were Asians. Disposition was 'home,' 'home with home health' (HWHH), 'skilled nursing home' (SNF), 'short-term inpatient therapy' (SIT), 'discharged against medical advice' (AMA), and 'died.'  A total of 602 (65.5%) were discharged home, 206 ( 22%) were discharged to HWHH, 109 (11.7%) to SNF, and 12 (1.28%) died. In the SIT and AMA groups, there were only three and two patients, respectively, p=0.23. The group that underwent TAVR and was not on chronic steroid therapy (NOSTEROID) had a mean age of 79 (SD=8.5), with 28731 (66.4%) being discharged home, 8399 (19.4%) to HWHH, 5319 (12.3%) to SNF, and 617 (1.43%) died p=0.17.  Comparing the STEROID vs. NONSTEROID group, according to the CCI, the STEROID group scored higher than the NOSTEROID group; 3.5 (SD=2) vs. 3 (SD=2) p=0.0001, while for LOS, it was 3.7 days (SD=4.3) vs. 4.1 days (SD=5.3), p=0.28, and the THC was $203,213 (SD=$110,476) vs. $215,858 (SD=$138,540), p=0.15. Conclusion The comorbidity burden of individuals on long-term steroids undergoing TAVR was slightly higher than those not on steroids undergoing TAVR. Despite this, there was no statistically significant difference in their hospital outcomes following TAVR with respect to dispositions.

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.

Outcome of Nonagenarians Undergoing Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Nationwide Registry Analysis From Japan

Background

Nonagenarians are a growing age group in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR); however, the appropriate use of TAVR in this population remains discussed because of their limited life expectancy and worse outcome reported.

Objectives

The authors aimed to evaluate clinical characteristics and the prognostic impact of nonagenarians.

Methods

We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR and were registered in the nationwide registry for TAVR in Japan (Japanese Transcatheter Valvular Therapies registry) between 2013 and 2018. The rate of 30-day and 1-year mortality and composite adverse event, comprising all-cause death, all stroke, and life-threatening/major bleeding, were assessed.

Results

Of the 15,028 registered patients during the study period, 2,215 (14.7%) were nonagenarians. Although the nonagenarians were less likely to have comorbid conditions (eg, diabetes mellitus and malignancy) than patients aged <90 y, they had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score (8.8% vs 5.6%), mainly owing to their advanced age. The procedural characteristics were identical between 2 groups. The rate of 30-day mortality and composite endpoint was similar, whereas 1-year mortality and composite adverse events were increased among nonagenarians (10.3% vs 6.8% and 13.5% vs 9.2%, respectively), and nonagenarians were independently associated with these endpoints (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03-1.42; P = 0.023; HR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.07-1.42; P = 0.004).

Conclusions

Of the 15,028 TAVR procedures performed in Japan between 2013 and 2018, 14.7% were performed in nonagenarians. These patients were carefully selected by a multidisciplinary heart team and showed 21% and 24% increase of 1-year mortality and composite adverse outcome.

Role of Changing Procedural Characteristics Versus Changing Risk Profile in Age‐Based Trends of Outcomes in Patients With Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement From 2012 to 2018: A Nationwide Analysis

Background

The trends in outcomes in patients who undergo transcatheter aortic valve replacement are well described in the literature. Some of these trends are driven by the decreasing risk profile of patients because of changing indications for transcatheter aortic valve replacement. We aimed to evaluate these trends in different age groups and quantify how much of these trends are driven by changes in procedural characteristics.

Methods and Results

Using the National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to 2018, we identified 204 230 adult patients who underwent transfemoral aortic valve replacement. The study's primary objective was to evaluate the changes in age‐based trends in in‐hospital mortality driven by changes in procedural characteristics over time. The secondary objectives were to evaluate similar trends in cardiac and noncardiac complications and resource use. Univariate and multivariate linear and logistic regression were used to obtain effect sizes. From 2012 to 2018, in‐hospital mortality decreased from 1.8% to 0.79% in the age group 18 to 64 years, from 3.8% to 1.6% in the age group 65 to 80 years, and from 5.3% to 1.5% in the age group >80 years ( P trend<0.01 for all age groups); these trends remained statistically significant on adjusted analysis except in patients aged 18 to 64 years. The other outcomes also showed variable trends over time. Length of stay, cost, and early discharge rates improved even after adjusting for comorbidities, which is likely attributable to improvement in procedural characteristics.

Conclusions

The changes in outcomes related to transcatheter aortic valve replacement are partly driven by changing patient risk profiles over time, but procedural characteristics have likely contributed to these trends in all age groups.

Economics of Minimalist Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Results From the 3M-TAVR Economic Study

BACKGROUND

The 3M-TAVR trial (3M-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement) demonstrated the feasibility and safety of next-day hospital discharge after transfemoral TAVR with implementation of a minimalist pathway. However, the economic impact of this approach is unknown. Therefore, we evaluated costs for patients undergoing minimalist TAVR compared with conventional TAVR.

METHODS

We used propensity matching to compare resource utilization and costs (from a US health care system perspective) for patients in the 3M-TAVR trial with those for transfemoral TAVR patients enrolled in the contemporaneous S3i trial (PARTNER SAPIEN-3 Intermediate Risk). Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource utilization for both groups. For the S3i group, all other costs through 30-day follow-up were assessed by linkage with Medicare claims; for 3M, these costs were assessed using regression models derived from S3i cost and resource utilization data.

RESULTS

After 1:1 propensity matching, 351 pairs were included in our study (mean age 82, mean Society of Thoracic Surgery risk score 5.3%). There were no differences in death, stroke, or rehospitalization between the 3M-TAVR and S3i groups through 30-day follow-up. Index hospitalization costs were $10 843/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort, driven by reductions in procedure duration, anesthesia costs, and length of stay. Between discharge and 30 days, costs were similar for the 2 groups such that cumulative 30-day costs were $11 305/patient lower in the 3M-TAVR cohort compared with the S3i cohort ($49 425 versus $60 729, 95% CI for difference $9378 to $13 138; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with conventional transfemoral TAVR, use of a minimalist pathway in intermediate-risk patients was associated with similar clinical outcomes and substantial in-hospital cost savings, which were sustained through 30 days.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02287662.

Clinical outcomes and cumulative healthcare costs of TAVR vs. SAVR in Asia

Objectives

This study compared transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in terms of short- and long-term effectiveness.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study based on nationwide National Health Insurance claims data and Cause of Death data focused on adult patients (n = 3,643) who received SAVR (79%) or TAVR (21%) between 2015 and 2019. Propensity score overlap weighting was applied to account for selection bias. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality (ACM), hospitalization for heart failure, and a composite endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes included medical utilization, hospital stay, and total medical costs at index admission for the procedure and in various post-procedure periods. The Cox proportional-hazard model with competing risk was used to investigate survival and incidental health outcomes. Generalized estimation equation (GEE) models were used to estimate differences in the utilization of medical resources and overall costs.

Results

After weighting, the mean age of the patients was 77.98 ± 5.86 years in the TAVR group and 77.98 ± 2.55 years in the SAVR group. More than half of the patients were female (53.94%). The incidence of negative outcomes was lower in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group, including 1-year ACM (11.39 vs. 17.98%) and 3-year ACM (15.77 vs. 23.85%). The risk of ACM was lower in the TAVR group (HR [95% CI]: 0.61 [0.44–0.84]; P = 0.002) as was the risk of CV death (HR [95% CI]: 0.47 [0.30–0.74]; P = 0.001) or MACE (HR [95% CI]: 0.66 [0.46–0.96]; P = 0.0274). Total medical costs were significantly higher in the TAVR group than in the SAVR in the first year after the procedure ($1,271.89 ± 4,048.36 vs. $887.20 ± 978.51; P = 0.0266); however, costs were similar in the second and third years after the procedure. The cumulative total medical costs after the procedure were significantly higher in the TAVR group than in the SAVR group (adjusted difference: $420.49 ± 176.48; P = 0.0172).

Conclusion

In this real-world cohort of patients with aortic stenosis, TAVR proved superior to SAVR in terms of clinical outcomes and survival with comparable medical utilization after the procedure.

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.

Evolving Indications of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared to Surgical Valve Replacement: A Review of the Current Literature

Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) are categorized into high risk, intermediate risk, and low risk. The identification of risk status is done using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality score. Various factors are considered such as clinical symptoms, ejection fraction, age, left ventricle measurements, severity of AS, associated comorbid factors, and any other associated cardiac diseases. Surgery is still a standard practice in many countries. However, it has its own complications, especially in high-risk patients. Transcatheter intervention is getting precipitous recognition as an alternative mode of treatment in selected cases to mitigate complication rates and improve quality of life. In this article, transcatheter aortic valve replacement and surgical aortic valve replacement are compared in patients with different surgical risks. The impact of the cost of the procedure and quality of life are of paramount importance in choosing the type of intervention. Structural valve degeneration is an independent risk factor affecting patient outcomes. Modifications in valve designs are being constantly implemented as well. The standard analytical methods are in accordance with randomized clinical trials to determine the efficacy and outcome of procedures. Primary and secondary endpoints were considered to evaluate the data. The results were tabulated to derive statistical significance of the studies. In high-risk surgical patients, transcatheter intervention has been proven as the procedure of choice for valve replacement. However, intermediate-risk and low-risk categories need further studies.

Contemporary Costs Associated With Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

In patients with severe aortic stenosis, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be cost-effective in the high-risk surgical population and cost-saving in the intermediate-risk population when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in early pivotal clinical trials. Whether TAVR is associated with comparable or lower costs when compared with SAVR in contemporary clinical practice is unknown.

METHODS

Using data from the Medicare Dataset Standard Analytic Files 5% Fee for Service database, patients receiving either TAVR or SAVR between 2016 and 2018 were identified. Patients were categorized as low, intermediate, or high mortality risk based on 2 validated indices-the Hospital Frailty Risk Score and the logEuroScore. Health care costs out to 1 year were compared between TAVR and SAVR among the low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, after adjustment for patient demographics.

RESULTS

Nine thousand seven hundred forty-six patients were identified (4834 TAVR; 3760 SAVR) and included in the analysis. Patients receiving TAVR were older and more likely to be female. Index hospitalization costs were significantly lower with TAVR compared with SAVR across all risk strata (logEuroScore: low: $61 845 versus $68 986; intermediate: $64 658 versus $76 965; high: $65 594 versus $91 005; P<0.001 for all). Follow-up costs through 1 year were generally lower with TAVR and this difference was more pronounced in the low risk groups (logEuroScore: $9763 versus $14 073; Hospital Frailty Risk Score: $10 116 versus $12 880). Accordingly, cumulative 1-year costs were substantially lower with TAVR compared with SAVR.

CONCLUSIONS

At 1 year, TAVR is associated with lower health care costs across all risk strata when compared with SAVR in contemporary practice. If long-term data continue to demonstrate similar clinical outcomes and valve durability with TAVR and SAVR, these findings suggest that TAVR may be the preferred treatment strategy for patients with aortic stenosis from an economic standpoint.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a resource-intensive approach versus minimally invasive strategy for high-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients

Aortic stenosis has a high mortality rate in patients who do not receive aortic valve replacement. Previously, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was an intervention reserved for individuals deemed high-risk for surgery. Since that time, TAVR has increasingly been offered to lower risk patients, yet it is unclear whether TAVR will meet an acceptable cost-effectiveness threshold in this group. In this cost-effectiveness study, we employed a decision tree model with Monte Carlo probability sensitivity analysis to determine the incremental cost (in US$) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY) of performing the TAVR procedure using the resource-intensive approach versus the minimally invasive strategy in high-risk surgical patients.

Cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis of TAVR availability in the US severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patient population

AIMS

We evaluated the availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to determine its value across all severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS) patients, especially those untreated because of concerns regarding invasive surgical AVR (SAVR) and its impact on active aging.

METHODS

We performed payer perspective cost-utility analysis (CUA) and societal perspective cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The CBA's benefit measure is active time: salaried labor, unpaid work, and active leisure. The study population is a cohort of US elderly SSAS patients. We compared a "TAVR available" scenario in which SSAS patients distribute themselves across TAVR, SAVR, and medical management (MM); and a "TAVR not available" scenario with only SAVR and MM. We structured each scenario with a decision-tree model of SSAS patient treatment allocation. We measured the association between health and active time in the US Health and Retirement Study and used this association to impute active time to SSAS patients given their health.

RESULTS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and rate of return (RoR) of TAVR availability were $8,533 and 395%, respectively. CUA net monetary benefits (NMB) were $212,199 per patient and $43.4 billion population-wide. CBA NMB were $50,530 per patient and $10.3 billion population-wide.

LIMITATIONS

Among study limitations were scarcity of evidence regarding key parameters and the lack of long-term survival, health utility, and treatment cost data. Our analysis did not account for TAVR durability, retreatments, and valve-in-valve treatments.

CONCLUSION

Across risk-, age-, and treatment-eligibility groups, TAVR is the economically optimal treatment choice. It represents strong value-for-money per patient and population-wide. The vast majority of TAVR value involves raising treatment uptake among the untreated.

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.

Evaluating treatment-specific post-discharge quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness of TAVR and SAVR: Current practice & future directions

•

Post-TAVR HRQOL shows more rapid short-term improvement than SAVR within trials.

•

Higher TAVR use requires better real-world TAVR/SAVR cost-effectiveness comparisons.

•

Wearable devices should be used in real-world settings to compare TAVR/SAVR HRQOL.

Background

Aortic stenosis is a prevalent valvular heart disease that is treated primarily by surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which are common treatments for addressing symptoms secondary to valvular heart disease. This narrative review article focuses on the existing literature comparing recovery and cost-effectiveness for SAVR and TAVR.

Methods

Major databases were searched for relevant literature discussing HRQOL and cost-effectiveness of TAVR and SAVR. We also searched for studies analyzing the use of wearable devices to monitor post-discharge recovery patterns.

Results

The literature focusing on quality-of-life following TAVR and SAVR has been limited primarily to single-center observational studies and randomized controlled trials. Studies focused on TAVR report consistent and rapid improvement relative to baseline status. Common HRQOL instruments (SF-36, EQ-5D, KCCQ, MLHFQ) have been used to document that TF-TAVR is advantageous over SAVR at 1-month follow-up, with the benefits leveling off following 1 year. TF-TAVR is economically favorable relative to SAVR, with estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values ranging from $50,000 to $63,000/QALY gained. TA-TAVR has not been reported to be advantageous from an HRQOL or cost-effectiveness perspective.

Conclusions

While real-world experiences are less described, large-scale trials have advanced our understanding of recovery and cost-effectiveness of aortic valve replacement treatment strategies. Future work should focus on scalable wearable device technology, such as smartwatches and heart-rate monitors, to facilitate real-world evaluation of TAVR and SAVR to support clinical decision-making and outcomes ascertainment.

Effect of eliminating pre-discharge transthoracic echocardiogram on outcomes after TAVR

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to determine the safety of eliminating the pre-discharge transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) on 30-day outcomes in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

BACKGROUND

TTE is utilized before, during, and after TAVR. Post-procedural, pre-discharge TTE assists in assessment of prosthesis function and detection of clinically significant paravalvular leak (PVL) after TAVR.

METHODS

Patients who underwent TAVR at Mayo Clinic from July 2018 to July 2019 were included in a prospective institutional registry. Patients undergoing TAVR prior to February 2019 received a pre-discharge TTE, while those undergoing TAVR after February 2019 did not. Both cohorts were evaluated with TTE at 30 days post-TAVR.

RESULTS

A total of 330 consecutive patients were included. Of these, 160 patients (age 81.1 ± 7.6) had routine pre-discharge TTE, while 170 patients (age 78.9 ± 7.5) were dismissed without routine pre-discharge TTE. Mortality at 30 days was similar between the two groups (0% and 1.2%, respectively). One episode of PVL requiring intervention (0.6%) occurred in the pre-discharge TTE group and none in the group without pre-discharge TTE at 30-day follow-up. There was a similar incidence of total composite primary and secondary adverse events between the cohort receiving a pre-discharge TTE and those without (28.1% vs. 25.3%, P = 0.56) at 30 days. The most common event was need for permanent pacemaker or ICD implantation in both groups (13.1% vs. 11.8%, P = 0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Elimination of the pre-discharge TTE is safe and associated with comparable 30-day outcomes to routine pre-discharge TTE. These findings have implication for TAVR practice cost-efficiency and health care utilization.

How to Image and Manage Prosthesis-Related Complications After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we provide an overview of potential prosthesis - related complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, their incidences, the imaging modalities best suited for detection, and possible strategies to manage these complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Therapy for severe aortic valve stenosis requiring intervention has increasingly evolved toward transcatheter aortic valve replacement over the past decade, and the number of procedures performed has increased steadily in recent years. As more and more centers favor a minimalistic approach and largely dispense with general anesthesia and intra-procedural imaging by transesophageal echocardiography, post-procedural imaging is becoming increasingly important to promptly detect dysfunction of the transcatheter valve and potential complications. Complications after transcatheter aortic valve replacement must be detected immediately in order to initiate adequate therapeutic measures, which require a profound knowledge of possible complications that may occur after transcatheter aortic valve replacement, the imaging modalities best suited for detection, and available treatment options.

TAVR and cancer: machine learning-augmented propensity score mortality and cost analysis in over 30 million patients

Introduction

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are the top mortality causes globally, yet little is known about how the diagnosis of cancer affects treatment options in patients with hemodynamically compromising aortic stenosis (AS). Patients with cancer often are excluded from aortic valve replacement (AVR) trials including trials with transcatheter AVR (TAVR) and surgical AVR (SAVR). This study looks at how cancer may influence treatment options and assesses the outcome of patients with cancer who undergo SAVR or TAVR intervention. Additionally, we sought to quantitate and compare both clinical and cost outcomes for patients with and without cancer.

Methods

This population-based case-control study uses the most recent year available National Inpatient Sample (NIS (2016) from the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Machine learning augmented propensity score adjusted multivariable regression was conducted based on the likelihood of undergoing TAVR versus medical management (MM) and TAVR versus SAVR with model optimization supported by backward propagation neural network machine learning.

Results

Of the 30,195,722 total hospital admissions, 39,254 (0.13%) TAVRs were performed, with significantly fewer performed in patients with versus without cancer even in those of comparable age and mortality risk (23.82% versus 76.18%, p < 0.001) despite having similar hospital and procedural mortality. Multivariable regression in patients with cancer demonstrated that mortality was similar for TAVR, MM, and SAVR, though LOS and cost was significantly lower for TAVR versus MM and comparable for TAVR versus SAVR. Patients with prostate cancer constituted the largest primary cancer among TAVR patients including those with metastatic disease. There were no significant race or geographic disparities for TAVR mortality.

Discussion

Comparison of aortic valve intervention in patients with and without cancer suggests that interventions are underutilized in the cancer population. This study suggests that patients with cancer including those with metastasis have similar inpatient outcomes to patients without cancer. Further, patients who have symptomatic AS and those with higher risk aortic valve disease should be offered the benefit of intervention. Modern techniques have reduced intervention-related adverse events, provided improved quality of life, and appear to be cost effective; these advantages should not necessarily be denied to patients with co-existing cancer.

Trends in Early Discharge and Associated Costs after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A National Perspective

OBJECTIVE

The current study aims to report trends of early discharges and identify associated direct costs using a nationally representative database of real-world data experience.

METHODS

We used nationally weighted data on all patients who had transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) from 2012 to 2017 and discharged alive from the National Inpatient Sample. Patients were divided into early (discharge ≤3 days of admission) and late discharge. Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared. Trends in early discharge and costs associated with admissions were analyzed over the study period.

RESULTS

Of the 125,188 patients identified, 59,424 (46.9%) were discharged early. The proportion of early discharge increased from 15% in early 2012 to 68% in late 2017 (P < 0.001), with the largest increase occurring from 2014 to 2015. Overall, the average cost of TAVR decreased from $58,408 in 2012 to $49,875 in 2017 (P < 0.001). Compared to late discharge, patients discharged early reported costs savings of ≥$20,000 over the study period. Among the early discharge group, no significant differences in costs were observed for patients discharged on 0 to 1, 2, or 3 days after the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative length of stay after TAVR has decreased dramatically within the last decade with an observed reduction in procedural costs. While discharge within 3 days appeared cost effective, no differences in costs were noted among patients discharged ≤3 days.

Real-World Health-Economic Considerations Around Aortic-Valve Replacement in a Publicly Funded Health System

Herein, we describe the unique interplay among biomedical ethics, principles of distributive justice, and economic theory to highlight the role of health technology assessments to compare therapeutic options for aortic valve replacement. From the perspective of the Canadian health care system, transcatheter aortic-valve implantation is associated with higher costs but also higher incremental health benefits compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. At current willingness to pay thresholds, transcatheter aortic-valve replacement is likely cost effective across the spectrum of risk, from inoperable patients to those at low surgical risk. However, we highlight the nuances within each subgroup of surgical risk that merit careful consideration by the heart team. Moreover, incorporation of patients and their preferences in decision-making is key. In particular, in young, low-risk patients, there remains uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment, with unique concerns around valve durability, selection of valve prosthesis, and consideration for special procedures such as the Ross procedure. Nonetheless, current research suggests that, universally, patients prefer a less invasive approach compared with a more invasive approach. Finally, we highlight that there remain critical issues around timeliness of access to care and unacceptable geographic inequities across Canada. Further research into alternative funding mechanisms and integrated cross-sector care pathways is necessary to address these issues.

Trends in Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in the United States (2012-2017)

As the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) expands to varying patient populations, impacting the landscape of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), this study sought to assess volume and performance trends of aortic valve replacement (AVR) in the United States during 2012-2017. The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for patients who underwent endovascular/transapical TAVI, isolated SAVR, or complex aortic valve surgery between 2012 and 2017. Temporal trends in annual case volume, admission costs, in-hospital outcomes, and 30-day readmission were evaluated. Of 624,303 patients (median age 72 years) who received AVR, 387,011 (62%) were men. Among these patients, 170,521 (27%) underwent TAVI and 453,782 (73%) underwent SAVR with 299,398 isolated and 154,384 complex aortic valve surgery. TAVI patients were significantly older and higher risk compared with SAVR patients. From 2012 to 2017, the annual number of TAVI increased from 8,295 to 55,168 whereas SAVR volume remained remarkably stable. Patients who underwent AVR demonstrated significant improvements in mortality, stroke, duration of hospitalization, and 30-day readmission. In conclusion, this large contemporary analysis reports the considerable growth of AVR in the United States. It remains unequivocal that the treatment of aortic stenosis is improving overall with reduced mortality following AVR, highlighting the effectiveness of various process improvements such as newer valves, enhanced patient selection, and the interdisciplinary Heart Team approach.

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.

Outcomes of surgical mitral valve replacement: A benchmark to assess transcatheter technologies

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transcatheter mitral valve replacement in intermediate and high surgical risk patients. We analyzed outcomes of surgical mitral valve replacement in a regional consortium to provide benchmark data for emerging alternative therapies.

METHODS

All patients undergoing mitral replacement with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (STS PROM) in a regional consortium from 2001 to 2017 were analyzed. Patients with endocarditis were excluded. Patients were stratified by STS PROM into low (<4%), moderate (4%-8%), and high risk (>8%) cohorts. Mortality, postoperative complications, and resource utilization were evaluated for each group.

RESULTS

A total of 1611 patients were analyzed including 927 (58%) low, 370 (23%) moderate, and 314 (20%) high-risk patients. The mean STS PROM was 2%, 5.6%, and 15.4% for each group. Mortality was adequately predicted for all groups while the most common complications included prolonged ventilation, reoperation, and renal failure. Higher risk patients had longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay (2 vs. 3 vs. 5 days, p < .0001 and 7 vs. 8 vs. 10 days, p < .0001) and higher total hospital costs ($38,029 vs. $45,075 vs. $59,171 p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Mitral valve replacement is associated with acceptable morbidity and mortality, particularly for low and intermediate-risk patients. These outcomes also serve as a benchmark with which to compare forthcoming results of transcatheter mitral valve replacement trials.

Episode Payments for Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

BACKGROUND

Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular heart disease in the United States. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is increasingly being adopted as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In an era of value-based payment reform, our objective was to better understand the economic impact of the use of TAVR and SAVR in the United States.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent TAVR or SAVR between 2012 and 2015. Using claims from a 20% sample of national fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, we calculated episode payments for patients who underwent aortic valve replacement from 90 days before aortic valve replacement through 90 days after hospital discharge. Among 18 804 eligible patients, 6455 underwent TAVR (34.3%), and 12 349 underwent SAVR (65.7%). After adjustment for patient characteristics, episode payments for TAVR were ≈7% lower than for SAVR (TAVR, $55 545 [95% CI, $54 643-56 446] versus $59 467 [95% CI, $58 723-60 211]; P<0.001). Patients with TAVR had higher preprocedural payments, but lower payments during and after the index hospitalization for the procedure. Episode payments increased with increasing comorbidity score for patients undergoing TAVR or SAVR (rate ratio, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.15-1.17]; P<0.001); however, this association was stronger for SAVR (rate ratio, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.17-1.19]) than for TAVR (rate ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.11-1.12]; P<0.001 for interaction). Thus, differences in episode payments between TAVR and SAVR were greatest for the sickest patients but much less in healthier patients.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR is associated with lower episode payments than SAVR. However, episode payments for TAVR are less influenced by patient comorbidity. Therefore, as TAVR is increasingly used in patients with better baseline health status, the economic advantages of TAVR relative to SAVR may diminish.

Should All Low-risk Patients Now Be Considered for TAVR? Operative Risk, Clinical, and Anatomic Considerations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article reviews the current data on TAVR in low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis, highlights the results of the recently published Medtronic Low Risk Randomized Study and PARTNER 3 trials, and describes specific clinical, anatomic, and procedural considerations regarding the optimal treatment choice in this population.

RECENT FINDINGS

In low-risk patients, the Medtronic Low Risk Randomized Study demonstrated TAVR to be non-inferior to surgery with respect to the composite endpoint of death or disabling stroke while PARTNER 3 trial proved TAVR to be superior to surgery with regard to the composite endpoint of death, stroke, or rehospitalization. Recent trials demonstrate the safety and efficacy of TAVR in low-risk patients and have led to an FDA indication for the use of TAVR in these patients. However, the lack of long-term data on the rate of transcatheter valve deterioration in the younger population, higher incidence of paravalvular leak and pacemaker implantation following TAVR, along with certain intrinsic anatomic factors remain potential challenges to generalize TAVR in all low surgical risk patients. We describe specific clinical, anatomic, and procedural considerations regarding the optimal treatment choice for low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic AS.

Effect of procedural refinement of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation on outcomes and costs: a single-centre retrospective study

Objectives

To determine the effect of introducing several procedural refinements of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) on clinical outcomes and costs.

Design

Retrospective analysis comparing two consecutive 1-year periods, before and after the introduction of procedural refinements.

Setting

Tertiary hospital aortic valve programme.

Participants

Consecutive patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI treated between April 2014 and August 2015 using the initial setup (n=70; control group) or between September 2015 and August 2016 after the introduction of procedural refinements (n=89).

Interventions

Introduction of conscious sedation, percutaneous access and closure, omission of transoesophageal echocardiography during the procedure, and an early discharge procedure.

Outcome measures

Procedural characteristics, complications and outcomes; length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital; hospital-related direct costs associated with TAVI.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence of complications or mortality between the two groups. The mean length of stay in the ICU was significantly shorter in the procedural-refinement group compared with the control group (5.1 vs 57.2 hours, p<0.001), as was the mean length of hospital stay (4.7 vs 6.6 days, p<0.001). The total cost per TAVI procedure was significantly lower, by £3580, in the procedural-refinement group (p<0.001). This was largely driven by lower ICU costs.

Conclusions

Among patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI, procedural refinement facilitated a shorter stay in ICU and earlier discharge from hospital and was cost saving compared with the previous setup.

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.