PCV109 COST-EFFECTIVENESS AND BUDGET IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE MINIMALLY INVASIVE SUTURELESS AORTIC VALVE REPLACEMENT IN PATIENTS WITH AORTIC STENOSIS IN POLAND

Background. Aortic valve stenosis is common with prevalence of about 0.5 %, peaking in people aged over 70 years mostly due to age-related valve calcification. The year 2002 was marked by the invention and use of the endovascular aortic replacement valve by an A. Cribier’s group of French surgeons. Russian endovascular surgery introduced transcatheter aortic valve replacement in 2009, having since built an extensive experience in this practice. Perioperative mortality in patients under 70 years with no serious comorbidity ranges from 1 to 3 %, however, reaching two-fold 4–8 % in elderly patients. The emergence of minimally invasive technologies offered cure to critical patients, who would merely not get over an open surgery.Materials and methods. This case study provides video recordings of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (Accurate Neo) in transfemoral approach performed for the first time in the Republic of Bashkortostan. Patient K., 70 yo, diagnosis: Atherosclerosis. Aortic valve stenosis. FC III. Complications: aortic valve calcification st. III, CHF II A, FC III, persistent atrial fibrillation, tachysystole. Comorbid: CHD. Exertional angina. FC III. CHF II A, FC III.Results and discussion. Improving the transcatheter valve type facilitates an optimal individual aortic valve selection. Pre-replacement valvuloplasty was performed in all patients. The valve replacement is followed by transoesophageal echocardiography to justify possible aortic valve post-dilatation upon marked paravalvular regurgitation. The implant positioning relative to the aortic valve fibrous crown and mitral valve flaps is precisely controlled with ultrasound.Conclusion. Interventional radiology currently provides high-quality, effective, minimally invasive medical aid even in aortic stenosis patients with multiple comorbidity. In the patient’s denial of open surgery, transcatheter aortic valve replacement represents a sole alternative treatment, also increasing the life expectancy and quality. A wider diversity of available transcatheter devices enables a better personalisation of the biological valve replacement procedure.

Download Full-text

The cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis

European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes ◽

10.1093/ehjqcco/qcaa058 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Derrick Y Tam ◽

Paymon M Azizi ◽

Stephen E Fremes ◽

Joanna Chikwe ◽

Mario Gaudino ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Aortic Valve ◽

Aortic Stenosis ◽

Aortic Valve Replacement ◽

Valve Replacement ◽

Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽

Life Time ◽

Surgical Risk ◽

Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽

Risk Patients

Abstract Aims The economic value of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low surgical risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis is not known. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of balloon-expandable TAVR and self-expandable TAVR relative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients. Methods and results A fully probabilistic Markov cohort model was constructed to estimate differences in costs and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] over the patient’s life-time time from the third-party payer’s perspective. Clinical outcomes modelled were alive/well (no complications), permanent stroke, ≥moderate paravalvular leak, new pacemaker, rehospitalization, and death. A network meta-analysis of the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk trial was performed to compare balloon-expandable TAVR, self-expandable TAVR, and SAVR for the efficacy inputs. Incremental-cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. The total life-time costs in the balloon-expandable TAVR, self-expandable-TAVR, and SAVR arms were $37 330 ± 4724, $39 660 ± 4862, and $34 583 ± 6731, respectively, and total life-time QALYs gained were 9.15 ± 3.23, 9.13 ± 3.23, and 9.05 ± 3.20, respectively. The ICERs for balloon-expandable TAVR and self-expandable TAVR against SAVR were $27 196/QALY and $59 641/QALY, respectively. Balloon-expandable TAVR was less costly and more effective than self-expandable TAVR. There was substantial uncertainty, with 53% and 58% of model iterations showing balloon-expandable TAVR to be the preferred option at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000/QALY and $100 000/QALY, respectively. Conclusion Compared with SAVR, TAVR, particularly with balloon-expandable prostheses may be a cost-effective option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk.

Download Full-text