The economic value of INTUITY in aortic valve replacement

Cost-utility analysis of sutureless and rapid deployment versus conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis in Thailand

BACKGROUND

Sutureless and rapid deployment aortic valve replacement (SUAVR) has become an alternative to conventional aortic valve replacement (CAVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) treatment due to its advantages in reducing surgery time and improving outcomes. This study aimed to assess the cost-utility of SUAVR vs. CAVR treatment for patients with moderate to severe AS in Thailand.

METHODS

A two-part constructed model was used to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) from both societal and healthcare perspectives. Data on short-term mortality, complications, cost, and utility data were obtained from the Thai population. Long-term clinical data were derived from clinical studies. Costs and QALYs were discounted annually at 3% and presented as 2022 values. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated to determine additional cost per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

SUAVR treatment incurred higher costs compared with CAVR treatment from both societal (THB 1,733,355 [USD 147,897] vs THB 1,220,643 [USD 104,150]) and healthcare provider perspectives (THB 1,594,174 [USD 136,022] vs THB 1,065,460 [USD 90,910]). In addition, SUAVR treatment resulted in lower health outcomes, with 6.20 life-years (LYs) and 4.95 QALYs, while CAVR treatment achieved 6.29 LYs and 5.08 QALYs. SUAVR treatment was considered as a dominated treatment strategy using both perspectives. Sensitivity analyses indicated the significant impact of changes in utilities and long-term mortality on the model.

CONCLUSION

SUAVR treatment is not a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with CAVR treatment for patients with moderate-severe AS in Thailand, as it leads to higher costs and inferior health outcomes. Other important issues related to specific patients such as those with minimally invasive surgery, those undergoing AVR with concomitant procedures, and those with calcified and small aortic root should be taken into account.

The Economic Value of Hybrid Single-photon Emission Computed Tomography With Computed Tomography Imaging in Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis

Objective

The objective was to quantify the potential economic value of single‐photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) with computed tomography (CT; SPECT/CT) versus CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA), ventilation–perfusion (V/Q) planar scintigraphy, and V/Q SPECT imaging modalities for diagnosing suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) patients in an emergency setting.

Methods

An Excel‐based simulation model was developed to compare SPECT/CT versus the alternate scanning technologies from a payer's perspective. Clinical endpoints (diagnosis, treatment, complications, and mortality) and their corresponding cost data (2016 USD) were obtained by performing a best evidence review of the published literature. Studies were pooled and parameters were weighted by sample size. Outcomes measured included differences in 1) excess costs, 2) total costs, and 3) lives lost per annum between SPECT/CT and the other imaging modalities. One‐way (±25%) sensitivity and three scenario analyses were performed to gauge the robustness of the results.

Results

For every 1,000 suspected PE patients undergoing imaging, expected annual economic burden by modality was found to be 3.2 million (SPECT/CT), 3.8 million (CTPA), 5.8 million (planar), and 3.6 million (SPECT) USD, with a switch to SPECT/CT technology yielding per‐patient‐per‐month cost savings of $51.80 (vs. CTPA), $213.80 (vs. planar), and $36.30 (vs. SPECT), respectively. The model calculated that the incremental number of lives saved with SPECT/CT was six (vs. CTPA) and three (vs. planar). Utilizing SPECT/CT as the initial imaging modality for workup of acute PE was also expected to save $994,777 (vs. CTPA), $2,852,014 (vs. planar), and $435,038 (vs. SPECT) in “potentially avoidable”’ excess costs per annum for a payer or health plan.

Conclusion

Compared to the currently available scanning technologies for diagnosing suspected PE, SPECT/CT appears to confer superior economic value, primarily via improved sensitivity and specificity and low nondiagnostic rates. In turn, the improved diagnostic accuracy accords this modality the lowest ratio of expenses attributable to potentially avoidable complications, misdiagnosis, and underdiagnosis.

The economic value of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via full sternotomy

Aim: To compare the economic value of EDWARDS INTUITY Elite™ (EIE) valve system for rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) in a full sternotomy (FS) approach (EIE-FS-RDAVR) versus FS-AVR using conventional stented bioprosthesis. Data & methods: A simulation model to compare each treatment's 30-day inpatient utilization and complication rates utilized: clinical end points obtained from the TRANSFORM trial patient subset (EIE-FS-RDAVR) and a best evidence review of the published literature (FS-AVR); and costs from the Premier database and published literature. Results: EIE-FS-RDAVR costs $800 less than FS-AVR per surgery episode attributable to lowered complication rates and utilization. Combined with the lower mortality, EIE-FS-RDAVR was a superior (dominant) technology versus FS-AVR. Conclusion: This preliminary investigation of EIE-FS-RDAVR versus conventional FS-AVR found the EIE valve offered superior economic value over a 30-day period. Real-world analyses with additional long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate if this result can be replicated over a longer timeframe.