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

2020 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Young Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: A Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pier Paolo Bocchino ◽  
Filippo Angelini ◽  
Brunilda Alushi ◽  
Federico Conrotto ◽  
Giacomo Maria Cioffi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Surgical Risk ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients

In the last decades, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) revolutionized the treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. The efficacy and safety of TAVR were first proven in inoperable and high-risk patients. Then, subsequent randomized clinical trials showed non-inferiority of TAVR as compared to surgical aortic valve replacement also in intermediate- and low-risk populations. As TAVR was progressively studied and clinically used in lower-risk patients, issues were raised questioning its opportunity in a younger population with a longer life-expectancy. As long-term follow-up data mainly derive from old studies with early generation devices on high or intermediate surgical risk patients, results can hardly be extended to most of currently treated patients who often show a low surgical risk and are treated with newer generation prostheses. Thus, in this low-risk younger population, decision making is difficult due to the lack of supporting data. The aim of the present review is to revise current literature regarding TAVR in younger patients.

scholarly journals Future Therapy for Low-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis—A Provider Survey

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-3
Author(s):  
Aisha Ahmed ◽  
Emmanouil S Brilakis ◽  
Karol Mudy ◽  
Benjamin Sun ◽  
Paul Sorajja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Transcatheter Aortic Valve ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
Valve In Valve

With the expansion of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low-risk patients, we sought to explore current implanters' predictions on the future of this therapy by sending a survey to a sample of 8,261 healthcare professionals using Internet-based software. The survey contained six questions regarding physician specialty and experience, transcatheter aortic valve replacement age cutoff, optimal treatment for low-risk patients, transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve sequence, and transcatheter aortic valve replacement concerns. The majority, 29% percent, of all respondents felt that transcatheter aortic valve replacement will become the first-choice therapy for all patients, regardless of age and 70% felt that the optimal treatment would be transcatheter aortic valve replacement, with transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve-in-valve if the first valve degenerates. Regarding the sequence of transcatheter aortic valve replacement valves, 78% preferred the Edwards Sapien 3 valve (ES-3) as the first transcatheter aortic valve replacement valve followed by either a second ES-3 or Medtronic Evolut valve. Despite the high acceptance of transcatheter aortic valve replacement, many respondents (56%) felt that surgical aortic valve replacement might still remain the preferred treatment in low-risk patients due to an unknown durability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement valves. A majority of implanters see transcatheter aortic valve replacement followed by valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement as the first-line therapy for low-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, but long-term durability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement is an unanswered concern.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document