European Society of Cardiology: the 2023 Atlas of Cardiovascular Disease Statistics

This report from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Atlas Project updates and expands upon the 2021 report in presenting cardiovascular disease (CVD) statistics for the ESC member countries. This paper examines inequalities in cardiovascular healthcare and outcomes in ESC member countries utilizing mortality and risk factor data from the World Health Organization and the Global Burden of Disease study with additional economic data from the World Bank. Cardiovascular healthcare data were collected by questionnaire circulated to the national cardiac societies of ESC member countries. Statistics pertaining to 2022, or latest available year, are presented. New material in this report includes contemporary estimates of the economic burden of CVD and mortality statistics for a range of CVD phenotypes. CVD accounts for 11% of the EU's total healthcare expenditure. It remains the most common cause of death in ESC member countries with over 3 million deaths per year. Proportionately more deaths from CVD occur in middle-income compared with high-income countries in both females (53% vs. 34%) and males (46% vs. 30%). Between 1990 and 2021, median age-standardized mortality rates (ASMRs) for CVD decreased by median >50% in high-income ESC member countries but in middle-income countries the median decrease was <12%. These inequalities between middle- and high-income ESC member countries likely reflect heterogeneous exposures to a range of environmental, socioeconomic, and clinical risk factors. The 2023 survey suggests that treatment factors may also contribute with middle-income countries reporting lower rates per million of percutaneous coronary intervention (1355 vs. 2330), transcatheter aortic valve implantation (4.0 vs. 153.4) and pacemaker implantation (147.0 vs. 831.9) compared with high-income countries. The ESC Atlas 2023 report shows continuing inequalities in the epidemiology and management of CVD between middle-income and high-income ESC member countries. These inequalities are exemplified by the changes in CVD ASMRs during the last 30 years. In the high-income ESC member countries, ASMRs have been in steep decline during this period but in the middle-income countries declines have been very small. There is now an important need for targeted action to reduce the burden of CVD, particularly in those countries where the burden is greatest.

Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Recipients of Solid Organ Transplants and Liver Cirrhosis: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of National Readmission Data

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) continues to grow in the United States. There are limited data on recipients of solid organ transplant (SOT) and patients with liver cirrhosis who undergo aortic valve replacement (AVR). Our study aims to evaluate outcomes in these populations. Using the national readmission database (2016 to 2020), we identified recipients of SOT and patients with liver cirrhosis without previous liver transplants who were admitted for severe aortic stenosis and underwent either TAVR or surgical AVR (SAVR). We used multivariable regression for adjusted analysis and the propensity score matching model, implementing complete Mahalanobis distance matching within the Propensity Score Caliper (0.2) to match TAVR and SAVR cohorts for outcomes. Of 3,394 hospitalizations for AVR in recipients of SOT, 2,181 underwent TAVR, and 1,213 underwent SAVR. On propensity-matched analysis, SAVR was associated with more adverse events than was TAVR, including in-hospital mortality (5.2% vs 1.1%, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.49, p <0.001), acute kidney injury (43.7% vs 10.2%, p <0.001), cardiogenic shock (9.0% vs 1.6%, p <0.001), sudden cardiac arrest (15.9 vs 6.0%, p <0.001), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (28% vs 10.4%, p <0.001), and net adverse events (72.8 vs 37.6%, p <0.001). A greater median length of stay (10 vs 2 days, p <0.001) and adjusted cost ($80,842 vs $57,014, p <0.001) were also observed. The readmission rates were the same for both cohorts after a 6-month follow-up. Similarly, in 14,763 hospitalizations for AVR in liver cirrhosis, 7,109 patients underwent TAVR, and 7,654 underwent SAVR. In propensity-matched cohorts (n = 2,341), SAVR was found to be associated with greater adverse events, including in-hospital mortality (19.8% vs 10%), stroke (6.7% vs 2%), acute kidney injury (67.7% vs 30.3%), cardiogenic shock (41.9% vs 19.9%), sudden cardiac arrest (31.8% vs 13.2%, aOR 2.89), major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (66.2% vs 35.7%), and net adverse events (86% vs 59.5%) (p <0.001). A greater median length of stay (16 vs 3 days) and cost ($500,218 vs $263,383) were also observed (p <0.001). However, the rate of readmissions at 30-day (9% vs 11.1%) and 180-day intervals (33.4% vs 39.8%) was lower for the SAVR cohort (p <0.05). In recipients of SOT and patients with liver cirrhosis, SAVR is associated with greater short-term mortality, adverse events, and healthcare burden than is TAVR. TAVR is a relatively safer alternative to SAVR in these patient populations, although further studies are warranted to compare the long-term outcomes.

Impact of cerebral protection on observed versus predicted in-hospital stroke in a high stroke risk TAVR cohort

BACKGROUND

Despite impressive improvements in the safety profile of Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the risk for peri-procedural stroke after TAVR has not declined substantially. In an effort to reduce periprocedural stroke, cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices have been utilized but have yet to demonstrate benefit in all-comers. There is a paucity of data supporting the utilization of CEP in TAVR patients with an anticipated high risk for peri-procedural stroke.

METHODS

The Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement In-Hospital Stroke (TASK) score is a clinical risk tool for predicting the in-hospital stroke risk of patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR. This score was used to identify high-risk patients and calculate the expected in-hospital stroke risk. This was a single-centre cohort study in all consecutive TAVR patients who had placement of CEP. The observed versus expected ratio for peri-procedural stroke was calculated. To obtain 95% credible intervals, we used 1000 bootstrapped samples of the original cohort sample size without replacement and recalculated the TASK predicted scores.

RESULTS

The study included 103 patients. The median age was 83 (IQR 78,89). 63 were male (61.1%) and 45 (43.69%) had a history of previous Stroke or TIA. Two patients had an in-hospital stroke after TAVR (1.94%). The expected risk of in-hospital stroke based on the TASK score was 3.39% (95% CI 3.07-3.73). The observed versus expected ratio was 0.57 (95% CI 0.52-0.64).

CONCLUSION

In this single-center study, we found that in patients undergoing TAVR with high stroke risk, CEP reduced the in-hospital stroke risk by 43% when compared with the risk-score predicted rate.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

N/A.

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.

Decision analysis in cardiac surgery: a scoping review and methodological primer

OBJECTIVES

Randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for evidence generation in medicine but are limited by their real-world generalizability, resource needs, shorter follow-up durations and inability to be conducted for all clinical questions. Decision analysis (DA) models may simulate trials and observational studies by using existing data and evidence- and expert-informed assumptions and extend analyses over longer time horizons, different study populations and specific scenarios, helping to translate population outcomes to patient-specific clinical and economic outcomes. Here, we present a scoping review and methodological primer on DA for cardiac surgery research.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science databases for cardiac surgery DA studies published until December 2021. Articles were summarized descriptively to quantify trends and ascertain methodological consistency.

RESULTS

A total of 184 articles were identified, among which Markov models (N = 92, 50.0%) were the most commonly used models. The most common outcomes were costs (N = 107, 58.2%), quality-adjusted life-years (N = 96, 52.2%) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (N = 89, 48.4%). Most (N = 165, 89.7%) articles applied sensitivity analyses, most frequently in the form of deterministic sensitivity analyses (N = 128, 69.6%). Reporting of guidelines to inform the model development and/or reporting was present in 22.3% of articles.

CONCLUSION

DA methods are increasing but remain limited and highly variable in cardiac surgery. A methodological primer is presented and may provide researchers with the foundation to start with or improve DA, as well as provide readers and reviewers with the fundamental concepts to review DA studies.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Financial Burden of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Given the increasing population eligible for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), resource utilization has become an important focus in this setting. We aimed to estimate the change in the financial burden of TAVI therapy over 2 different periods. A probabilistic Markov model was developed to estimate the cost consequences of increased center experience and the introduction of newer-generation TAVI devices compared with an earlier TAVI period in a cohort of 6,000 patients. The transition probabilities and hospitalization costs were retrieved from the OBSERVANT (Observational Study of Effectiveness of AVR-TAVI procedures for severe Aortic steNosis Treatment) and OBSERVANT II (Observational Study of Effectiveness of TAVI with new generation deVices for severe Aortic stenosis Treatment) studies, including 1,898 patients treated with old-generation devices and 1,417 patients treated with new-generation devices. The propensity score matching resulted in 853 pairs, with well-balanced baseline risk factors. The mean EuroSCORE II (6.6% vs 6.8%, p = 0.76) and the mean age (82.0 vs 82.1 y, p = 0.62) of the early TAVI period and new TAVI period were comparable. The new TAVI period was associated with a significant reduction in rehospitalizations (-30.5% reintervention, -25.2% rehospitalization for major events, and -30.8% rehospitalization for minor events) and a 20% reduction in 1-year mortality. These reductions resulted in significant cost savings over a 1-year period (-€4.1 million in terms of direct costs and -€19.7 million considering the additional cost of the devices). The main cost reduction was estimated for rehospitalization, accounting for 79% of the overall cost reduction (not considering the costs of the devices). In conclusion, the introduction of new-generation TAVI devices, along with increased center experience, led to significant cost savings at 1-year compared with an earlier TAVI period, mainly because of the reduction in rehospitalization costs.

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.

Minimal Access Aortic Valve Surgery

Minimally invasive approaches to the aortic valve have been described since 1993, with great hopes that they would become universal and facilitate day-case cardiac surgery. The literature has shown that these procedures can be undertaken with equivalent mortality rates, similar operative times, comparable costs, and some benefits regarding hospital length of stay. The competing efforts of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for these same outcomes have provided an excellent range of treatment options for patients from cardiology teams. We describe the current state of the art, including technical considerations, caveats, and complications of minimal access aortic surgery and predict future directions in this space.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT02675114.

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.

Patient-reported outcome is associated with health care costs in patients with ischaemic heart disease and arrhythmia

AIMS

Systematic use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have the potential to improve quality of care and reduce costs of health care services. We aimed to describe whether PROs in patients diagnosed with heart disease are directly associated with health care costs.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A national cross-sectional survey including PROs at discharge from a heart centre with 1-year follow-up using data from national registers. We included patients with either ischaemic heart disease (IHD), arrhythmia, heart failure (HF), or valvular heart disease (VHD). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the heart-specific quality of life, the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire, and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale were used. The economic analysis was based on direct costs including primary, secondary health care, and medical treatment. Patient-reported outcomes were available from 13 463 eligible patients out of 25.241 [IHD (n = 7179), arrhythmia (n = 4322), HF (n = 987), or VHD (n = 975)]. Mean annual total direct costs in all patients were €23 228 (patients with IHD: €19 479, patients with arrhythmia: €21 076, patients with HF: €34 747, patients with VDH: €48 677). Hospitalizations contributed overall to the highest part of direct costs. For patients discharged with IHD or arrhythmia, symptoms of anxiety or depression, worst heart-specific quality of life or health status, and the highest symptom burden were associated with increased economic expenditure. We found no associations in patients with HF or VHD.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported outcomes at discharge from a heart centre were associated with direct health care costs in patients with IHD and arrhythmia.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01926145.

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.

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.

Economic Evaluation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Chinese Intermediate-Risk Patients

Background

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a severe disease that causes heart failure and sudden death. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are both recommended for patients with intermediate surgical risk, but the cost-effectiveness of TAVR compared to SAVR in China has not been investigated.

Methods

A combined decision tree and Markov model were conducted to compare the cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR with a 5-year simulation. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), a ratio of incremental costs to incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). One-way sensitive analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were conducted to test the robustness of the model.

Results

After a simulation of 5 years, the costs of TAVR and SAVR were 54,573 and 35,002 USD, respectively, and the corresponding effectiveness was 2.826 versus 2.712 QALY, respectively. The ICER for the TAVR versus SAVR comparison was 170,056 USD/QALY, which was three times higher than the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) in China. One-way sensitive analysis showed that the cost of the TAVR device impacted the ICER. The TAVR could be cost-effective only in the case where its cost is lowered to 29,766 USD.

Conclusion

TAVR is currently not cost-effective in China, but it could be cost-effective with a reduction of costs to 29,766 USD, which is approximately 65% of the current price.

Financial Incentives for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Ontario, Canada: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Background

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive therapy for patients with severe aortic stenosis, which has become standard of care. The objective of this study was to determine the maximum cost‐effective investment in TAVI care that should be made at a health system level to meet quality indicator goals.

Methods and Results

We performed a cost‐utility analysis using probabilistic patient‐level simulation of TAVI care from the Ontario, Canada, Ministry of Health perspective. Costs and health utilities were accrued over a 2‐year time horizon. We created 4 hypothetical strategies that represented TAVI care meeting ≥1 quality indicator targets, (1) reduced wait times, (2) reduced hospital length of stay, (3) reduced pacemaker use, and (4) combined strategy, and compared these with current TAVI care. Per‐person costs, quality‐adjusted life years, and clinical outcomes were estimated by the model. Using these, incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for each strategy at different cost‐effectiveness thresholds between $0 and $100 000 per quality‐adjusted life year. Clinical improvements over the current practice were estimated with all comparator strategies. In Ontario, achieving quality indicator benchmarks could avoid ≈26 wait‐list deaths and 200 wait‐list hospitalizations annually. Compared with current TAVI care, the incremental net monetary benefit for this strategy varied from $10 765 (±$8721) and $17 221 (±$8977). This would translate to an annual investment of between ≈$14 to ≈$22 million by the Ontario Ministry of Health to incentivize these performance measures being cost‐effective.

Conclusions

This study has quantified the modest annual investment required and substantial clinical benefit of meeting improvement goals in TAVI care.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIMS

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

LIMITATIONS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Health Technology Assessment for Cardiovascular Digital Health Technologies and Artificial Intelligence: Why Is It Different?

Innovations in health care are growing exponentially, resulting in improved quality of and access to care, as well as rising societal costs of care and variable reimbursement. In recent years, digital health technologies and artificial intelligence have become of increasing interest in cardiovascular medicine owing to their unique ability to empower patients and to use increasing quantities of data for moving toward personalised and precision medicine. Health technology assessment agencies evaluate the money spent on a health care intervention or technology to attain a given clinical impact and make recommendations for reimbursement considerations. However, there is a scarcity of economic evaluations of cardiovascular digital health technologies and artificial intelligence. The current health technology assessment framework is not equipped to address the unique, dynamic, and unpredictable value considerations of these technologies and highlight the need to better approach the digital health technologies and artificial intelligence health technology assessment process. In this review, we compare digital health technologies and artificial intelligence with traditional health care technologies, review existing health technology assessment frameworks, and discuss challenges and opportunities related to cardiovascular digital health technologies and artificial intelligence health technology assessment. Specifically, we argue that health technology assessments for digital health technologies and artificial intelligence applications must allow for a much shorter device life cycle, given the rapid and even potentially continuously iterative nature of this technology, and thus an evidence base that maybe less mature, compared with traditional health technologies and interventions.

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.

Safety and operational efficiency of restructuring and redeploying a transcatheter aortic valve replacement service during the COVID-19 pandemic: The Oxford experience

BACKGROUND

The risk of nosocomial COVID-19 infection for vulnerable aortic stenosis patients and intensive care resource utilization has led to cardiac surgery deferral. Untreated severe symptomatic aortic stenosis has a dismal prognosis. TAVR offers an attractive alternative to surgery as it is not reliant on intensive care resources. We set out to explore the safety and operational efficiency of restructuring a TAVR service and redeploying it to a new non-surgical site during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The institutional prospective service database was retrospectively interrogated for the first 50 consecutive elective TAVR cases prior to and after our institution's operational adaptations for the COVID-19 pandemic. Our endpoints were VARC-2 defined procedural complications, 30-day mortality or re-admission and service efficiency metrics.

RESULTS

The profile of patients undergoing TAVR during the pandemic was similar to patients undergoing TAVR prior to the pandemic with the exception of a lower mean age (79 vs 82 years, p < 0.01) and median EuroScore II (3.1% vs 4.6%, p = 0.01). The service restructuring and redeployment contributed to the pandemic-mandated operational efficiency with a reduction in the distribution of pre-admission hospital visits (3 vs 3 visits, p < 0.001) and the time taken from TAVR clinic to procedure (26 vs 77 days, p < 0.0001) when compared to the pre-COVID-19 service. No statistically significant difference was noted in peri-procedural complications and 30-day outcomes, while post-operative length of stay was significantly reduced (2 vs 3 days, p < 0.0001) when compared to pre-COVID-19 practice.

CONCLUSIONS

TAVR service restructuring and redeployment to align with pandemic-mandated healthcare resource rationalization is safe and feasible.