Cost-Effectiveness and Projected Survival of Self-Expanding Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement for High Risk Patients in a European Setting: A Dutch Analysis Based on the CoreValve High Risk Trial

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at low surgical risk in France: a model-based analysis of the Evolut LR trial

BACKGROUND

In the recent Evolut Low Risk randomized trial, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was shown to be non-inferior to surgery (SAVR) regarding the composite end point of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke at 24 months.

AIMS

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of self-expandable TAVI in low-risk patients, using the French healthcare system as the basis for analysis.

METHODS

Mortality, health-related quality of life, and clinical event rates through two-year follow-up were derived from trial data (N = 725 TAVI and N = 678 SAVR; mean age: 73.9 years; mean STS-PROM: 1.9%). Cost inputs were based on real-world data for TAVI and SAVR procedures in the French healthcare system. Costs and effectiveness as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were projected to lifetime via a decision-analytic model under assumption of no mortality difference beyond two years. The discounted incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was evaluated against a willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000 per QALY gained. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, including assumptions about differential long-term survival.

RESULTS

For the base case, mean survival was 13.69 vs 13.56 (+ 0.13) years for TAVI and SAVR, respectively. Discounted QALYs were 9.34 vs. 9.21 (+ 0.13) and discounted lifetime costs €52,267 vs. €51,433 (+ €833), resulting in a lifetime ICER of €6368 per QALY gained. In probabilistic sensitivity analysis, TAVI was found dominant or cost-effective in 74.4% of samples.

CONCLUSION

TAVI in patients at low surgical risk is a cost-effective alternative to SAVR in the French healthcare system. Longer follow-up data will help increase the accuracy of lifetime survival projections.

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.

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.

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-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.

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

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

Early cost-utility analysis of tissue-engineered heart valves compared to bioprostheses in the aortic position in elderly patients

OBJECTIVES

Aortic valve disease is the most frequent indication for heart valve replacement with the highest prevalence in elderly. Tissue-engineered heart valves (TEHV) are foreseen to have important advantages over currently used bioprosthetic heart valve substitutes, most importantly reducing valve degeneration with subsequent reduction of re-intervention. We performed early Health Technology Assessment of hypothetical TEHV in elderly patients (≥ 70 years) requiring surgical (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) to assess the potential of TEHV and to inform future development decisions.

METHODS

Using a patient-level simulation model, the potential cost-effectiveness of TEHV compared with bioprostheses was predicted from a societal perspective. Anticipated, but currently hypothetical improvements in performance of TEHV, divided in durability, thrombogenicity, and infection resistance, were explored in scenario analyses to estimate quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain, cost reduction, headroom, and budget impact.

RESULTS

Durability of TEHV had the highest impact on QALY gain and costs, followed by infection resistance. Improved TEHV performance (- 50% prosthetic valve-related events) resulted in lifetime QALY gains of 0.131 and 0.043, lifetime cost reductions of €639 and €368, translating to headrooms of €3255 and €2498 per hypothetical TEHV compared to SAVR and TAVI, respectively. National savings in the first decade after implementation varied between €2.8 and €11.2 million (SAVR) and €3.2-€12.8 million (TAVI) for TEHV substitution rates of 25-100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the relatively short life expectancy of elderly patients undergoing SAVR/TAVI, hypothetical TEHV are predicted to be cost-effective compared to bioprostheses, commercially viable and result in national cost savings when biomedical engineers succeed in realising improved durability and/or infection resistance of TEHV.