Eficacia y seguridad del dispositivo de prótesis valvular aórtico percutáneo para estenosis aórtica severa / Efficacy and Safety of Percutaneous Aortic Valve Prosthesis Device for Severe Aortic Stenosis

INTRODUCCIÓN: La Estenosis Aórtica (EA) es la valvulopatía más frecuente en el mundo, cuya incidencia se va incrementando con el envejecimiento de la población; su etiología se asocia a la calcificación de la válvula con una prevalencia del 50%-70% en pacientes de la tercera edad; que por lo general son individuos que poseían una válvula aórtica anatómicamente normal que desarrolla calcificación entre la sexta y séptima década de la vida. La estenosis aórtica severa es una condición que afecta a las personas en edad avanzada, consiste en la obstrucción del flujo sanguíneo a través de la válvula aórtica debido a la fibrosis y calcificación de la misma, comprendida como un área de la válvula aórtica (AVA) 40 mm Hg y/o una velocidad máxima del chorro aórtico (Vmax) >4 m/s. Un 30% del total de pacientes que padecen estenosis aórtica severa tienen riesgo quirúrgico muy elevado para cirugía convencional. Entre ellos figuran los pacientes de edad avanzada, a quienes se les debe evitar este tipo de cirugía, así como la circulación extracorpórea. Uno de los tratamientos más recientes para esta condición médica es el reemplazo percutáneo de la válvula aórtica o reemplazo transcatéter de la válvula aórtica. El Implante o reemplazo transcatéter de válvula aórtica, es una técnica en la que se puede implantar una válvula aórtica artificial guiada a través de un catéter introducido por punción de una arteria (femoral, axilar, aorta) o por la punta del corazón (vía apical). Todo ello sin parar el corazón ni necesitar seccionar de forma completa el esternón (como en la cirugía convencional) ni usar circulación extracorpórea El objetivo de la presente Evaluación de tecnología sanitaria (ETS) es evaluar la eficacia y seguridad, así como documentos relacionados a la decisión de cobertura con el del dispositivo prótesis valvular aórtico percutáneo o transcatéter de válvula aórtica en el tratamiento de pacientes con estenosis aórtica severa y con elevado riesgo quirúrgico o inoperables por cirugía convencional. METODOLOGÍA: Se realizó una búsqueda en las principales bases de datos bibliográficas: MEDLINE, LILACS, COCHRANE, así como en buscadores genéricos de Internet incluyendo Google Scholar y TRIPDATABASE, hasta el 11 de mayo de 2022. Adicionalmente, se hizo una búsqueda dentro de la información generada por las principales agencias de tecnologías sanitarias y guías de práctica clínica. RESULTADOS: Se identificaron 9 Revisiones sistemáticas (RS), 4 Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias (ETS) y una evaluación económica (EC) realizada para Chile. No se identificaron EC para Perú, ni Guías de Práctica Clínica (GPC) que puedan responder la pregunta PICO. La más reciente revisión sistemática del año 2021, incorpora la evidencia actualizada de los dos grandes ensayos clínicos que responden la pregunta, mientras que las demás RS incluyen parte de estos ensayos. La evaluación de la calidad de la RS más reciente ha sido valorada como baja debido a que solo presenta un criterio crítico. CONCLUSIONES: La evidencia identificada en relación al implante valvular aórtico percutáneo para estenosis aórtica severa en pacientes con elevado riesgo quirúrgico, encontró que no se encuentran diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre ambos grupos en los desenlaces de: mortalidad por todas las causas, mortalidad por causa cardiovascular, stroke, stroke mayor discapacitante, infarto de miocardio, endocarditis, reintervención o reparación, hasta luego de 5 años de seguimiento. Se observó un menor riesgo para TAVI comparado con SAVR para los desenlaces: sangrado mayor, nuevo inicio o empeoramiento de fibrilación auricular. Por otro lado, se observó un mayor riesgo con TAVI comparado con SAVR para complicaciones vasculares mayores e implantación de marcapasos permanente.

Implante percutâneo de válvula aórtica (TAVI) para tratamento da estenose aórtica grave em pacientes inoperáveis / Percutaneous aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients inoperable

INTRODUÇÃO: A estenose aórtica é relacionada a fatores de risco para aterosclerose, principalmente ao envelhecimento. A prevalência na faixa etária entre 65 e 74 anos é de 1,3%, e acima de 75 anos, 2,8%. Pacientes com estenose aórtica têm risco aumentado de morte cardiovascular (HR 2,14; IC 95% 1,21-3,76). As manifestações clínicas são relacionadas à insuficiência cardíaca, podendo também estarem presentes dor no peito (angina) e síncope. O prognóstico, após início dos sintomas, é de 50% de mortalidade em dois anos, sendo recomendada a cirurgia de troca valvar aórtica, mas cerca de 30% dos idosos têm a cirurgia contraindicada pelo alto risco cirúrgico. O TAVI é uma opção de tratamento percutâneo (transapical ou transfemoral), com troca valvar sem necessidade de toracotomia e circulação extracorpórea. Apresenta benefícios em relação ao tratamento clínico tais como maior sobrevida e qualidade de vida, reduzindo sintomas relacionados à insuficiência cardíaca e o número de internações hospitalares, porém, associa-se com riscos imediatos como necessidade de implante de marcapasso, hemotransfusões, insuficiência renal, diálise, acidente vascular cerebral, lesões vasculares, tamponamento cardíaco e morte. Como os resultados de eficácia são distintos de acordo com a via de acesso à valva aórtica, este relatório contempla apenas TAVI por via transfemoral. TECNOLOGIA: Implante percutâneo transfemoral de válvula aórtica (TAVI). PERGUNTA DE PESQUISA: Em pacientes com estenose aórtica grave considerados inoperáveis, o TAVI, em comparação com o tratamento clínico, é seguro e custo-efetivo? EVIDÊNCIAS CLÍNICAS: Um ensaio randomizado (PARTNER B), além de registros e estudos observacionais, apresentaram ganhos em sobrevida e na qualidade de vida com o TAVI. Resultados de 5 anos do PARTNER B, com 179 pacientes em cada braço de intervenção, revelam menor mortalidade (71,8% versus 93,6%), HR 0,50 (IC95% 0,39-0,65), menor chance de hospitalização (47,6% versus 87,3%; p < 0,0001) e maior chance de estar em classe funcional NYHA I e II (New York Heart Association) (86% versus 60%) nos pacientes do grupo TAVI. Acidente vascular cerebral foi mais frequente até o seguimento de três anos do TAVI (14,4% TAVI versus 4,12% braço clínico; p = 0,0007). AVALIAÇÃO ECONÔMICA: Avaliação do tipo custo-utilidade em modelo de Markov, com ciclos mensais, horizonte temporal de 5 anos, perspectiva do SUS, revela razão de custo-utilidade incremental (RCUI) de R$189.920,69/QALY. Na análise de sensibilidade determinística, observou-se que o custo do TAVI é o parâmetro com maior impacto na RCUI. Considerando um limiar de 3 PIB per capita por ano de vida ajustado por qualidade (QALY) e analisando separadamente os componentes do custo TAVI como o custo do procedimento (considerado fixo e equivalente a R$ 28.244,41) e o custo da prótese (variável), estimou-se que, para o TAVI ser considerado custo-efetivo, o custo máximo do procedimento TAVI deve ser de R$ 57.292,1 e consequentemente, o custo máximo isolado da prótese equivalente a R$ 29.047,69. AVALIAÇÃO DE IMPACTO ORÇAMENTÁRIO: O impacto orçamentário é proporcional à quantidade de procedimentos de TAVI realizados. Baseado no pressuposto de realização de um máximo de 80 procedimentos por mês no Brasil, foi estimado um impacto em torno de 78 milhões de reais no primeiro ano e um impacto total, em 5 anos, de aproximadamente 467 milhões de reais. MONITORAMENTO DO HORIZONTE TECNOLÓGICO: Foram realizadas pesquisas nos bancos de dados de ensaios clínicos e patentes Clinical Trials , Cortellis , ECRI, Espacenet e Patentscope e no site do FDA. Para isto, foram utilizados os descritores "severe aortic stenosis" e "aortic stenosis". Dentre os resultados obtidos foram desconsiderados os implantes que já são comercializados no mercado do brasileiro, de modo a proporcionar uma melhor prospecção de mercado. Foi identificado um TAVI registrado no FDA e quatro pedidos patentários internacionais que possuem depósito brasileiro, contudo devido a sua recente inclusão internacional ainda não possui pedido em fase nacional. CONSIDERAÇÕES FINAIS: A principal vantagem do TAVI é permitir a troca valvar aórtica sem a necessidade de toracotomia ou circulação extracorpórea, o que o coloca como opção terapêutica para pacientes com estenose aórtica inoperáveis. Demanda expertise médica e estrutura hospitalar com suporte de sala de hemodinâmica e cirurgia cardíaca. O controle na qualidade do atendimento e no impacto orçamentário estão diretamente relacionados a quantidade de centros e de procedimentos por centro que poderão ser autorizados para realização do TAVI. RECOMENDAÇÃO PRELIMINAR DA CONITEC: Pelo exposto, os membros da Conitec, em sua 95ª reunião ordinária, no dia 04 de março de 2021, recomendaram por unanimidade, a não incorporação no SUS do TAVI para tratamento de pacientes com estenose aórtica grave inoperáveis. Considerou-se que, apesar das evidências que suportam o benefício clínico da intervenção, os dados econômicos de relação de custo-utilidade incremental e impacto orçamentário são desfavoráveis. A matéria foi disponibilizada em consulta pública. CONSULTA PÚBLICA: A Consulta Pública nº 15/2021 foi realizada entre os dias 18/03/2021 e 06/04/2021. Foram recebidas 17 contribuições, sendo 12 pelo formulário para contribuições técnico-científicas e cinco pelo formulário para contribuições sobre experiência ou opinião de pacientes, familiares, amigos ou cuidadores de pacientes, profissionais de saúde ou pessoas interessadas no tema. RECOMENDAÇÃO FINAL: Pelo exposto, o Plenário da Conitec, em sua 96ª Reunião Ordinária, no dia 05 de maio de 2021, deliberou por unanimidade recomendar a incorporação do implante percutâneo da válvula aórtica (TAVI) para tratamento da estenose aórtica grave em pacientes com estenose aórtica grave sintomática inoperáveis. Os membros da Conitec consideraram o benefício clínico com ganhos em sobrevida e qualidade de vida dos pacientes para recomendar a incorporação desta tecnologia que está condicionada, no máximo, ao valor considerado custo-efetivo na análise para o Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS). Assim, foi assinado o Registro de Deliberação nº 606/2021. DECISÃO: Incorporar o implante percutâneo de válvula aórtica (TAVI) para tratamento da estenose aórtica grave em pacientes inoperáveisno âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde ­ SUS, conforme Portaria nº 32, republicada no Diário Oficial da União nº 123, Seção 1, página 195, em 02 de julho de 2021.

Summary: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Evaluation of the evidence and synthesis of organizational issues

CONTEXT: Aortic valvular stenosis, or narrowing of the valve orifice, is a progressive disease that generally affects patients over the age of 65 years in Western countries and is usually caused by degenerative calcification. Aortic stenosis causes increasing resistance against the ejection of blood from the left ventricle towards the aorta. After symptoms appear (dyspnea, angina, syncope), the disease rapidly progresses causing severe limitation of physical capacity, heart failure, and high risk of mortality. Aortic stenosis represents the third most common cardiovascular disease among adults and the most frequent cardiac valve illness among elderly persons in the industrialized world. Its prevalence is estimated at at 2.8% in the population aged 75 and older in the United States. In Quebec, the number of octogenarians will double to about 780,000 persons by 2035, representing about 9% of the total population. Aortic stenosis will thus become more frequent and is expected to have an increasingly important impact on the Quebec health care system. Until recently, the only effective therapy for severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis was surgical valve replacement, but about a third of elderly patients can be refused this procedure due to their health status or aortic anatomy, which renders surgery too risky. In 2002, a percutaneous technique for implanting an aortic valve was developed, allowing the delivery by catheter and deployment of an aortic valve bioprosthesis, without recourse to open-heart surgery. Since then, the number of transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVIs) carried out worldwide has increased at a rapid rate. However, there are no Canadian clinical practice guidelines specific to TAVI, and the criteria for selection of patients raise important questions. Currently in Quebec, several institutions either have already set up a TAVI program or are in the process of doing so. A narrative review of the literature up to 2009 and an analysis of the Quebec experience was published in 2010 by a working group of the Réseau québécois de cardiologie tertiaire (RQCT). Following the release of this document, the ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux (MSSS) recommended that this procedure be used only for patients who cannot be treated by traditional surgical methods due to an excessive risk of complications and be offered only by university hospitals or institutes with experienced multidisciplinary teams (performing a minimum of 30 procedures a year). Also, the MSSS gave the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) the mandate to perform an evaluation of TAVI. OBJECTIVES OF THIS EVALUATION: 1. Synthesize, via a systematic review, the recent evidence on effectiveness, safety and economic issues related to TAVI using the Cribier-Edwards / Edwards SAPIEN or CoreValve bioprostheses for adult patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis, with an emphasis on clinical results at 1 year; and to 2. Synthesize, via a narrative review, the principal organizational aspects of delivering this procedure, including the selection of patients before implantation and key considerations concerning ethics and the patient's perspective. METHODS: A systematic search of the scientific literature published between January 2008 and January 2011 was carried out using bibliographic databases, 2008 being the year when clinical results on mortality at 1 year began to become available. Given the relative lack of publications from registries, on quality of life and regarding economic issues, we also selected several oral presentations from scientific conferences. Using primary research articles and registry reports that provided survival data at 1 year as the main source of information, we examined clinical results for TAVI patients at 30 days and at 1 year. In order to summarize issues pertaining to organizational aspects and patient eligibility, we retrieved relevant information from the following sources: 1) the most recent expert consensus documents from North America and Europe; 2) health technology assessment (HTA) reports published between 2008 and 2010, and the 2011 update of a report by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 3) relevant articles retrieved from our literature search; and 4) a key research article and accompanying editorial, published in June 2011, concerning cohort A of the PARTNER randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: In the systematic review of clinical results, 17 studies met our selection criteria: 13 were research studies (1 randomized controlled trial, 4 controlled cohort studies, 8 case series), and 4 were analyses of registries (2 national, 2 from industry), which can be considered as case series. Most studies were from outside North America. In the clinical trial (PARTNER B cohort), 179 patients were randomized to transfemoral TAVI, and 179 were randomized to medical treatment (most of the patients in this group also underwent balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) for aggravation of their aortic stenosis). We also retained 3 HTA reports and 2 systematic review. In each of the 17 studies, the patients eligible for TAVI were considered either inoperable, not suitable for surgery or at high surgical risk. In almost every study, it was indicated that patient selection was based on the consensus decision of a multidisciplinary team. In general, TAVI patients were elderly (with a mean age of at least 81 years) and the majority were in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class 3 or 4, but the extent of surgical risk varied greatly across studies.

Implantation valvulaire aortique par cathéter: évaluation des données probantes et synthèse des considérations organisationnelles / Aortic valve implantation by catheter: evaluation of evidence and synthesis of organizational considerations

INTRODUCCIÓN: La sténose valvulaire aortique est une maladie progressive qui peut avoir plusieurs causes, mais qui se manifeste de nos jours dans les pays occidentaux généralement chez des personnes âgées de plus de 65 ans. Cette sténose ou rétrécissement de l'orifice de la valve aortique offre une résistance à l'éjection du sang du ventricule gauche vers l'aorte. La sténose est généralement causée par une calcification dégénérative. Après l'apparition de symptômes (dyspnée, angine, syncope), il y a une progression rapide de la maladie, accompagnée d'une limitation des activités physiques, d'une insuffisance cardiaque et d'un risque élevé de mortalité. La sténose valvulaire aortique représente la troisième maladie cardiovasculaire chez l'adulte et l'atteinte valvulaire cardiaque la plus fréquente chez la personne âgée dans le monde industrialisé. Sa prévalence est estimée à 2,8 % dans la population de 75 ans et plus aux États-Unis. Au Québec, le nombre d'octogénaires devrait doubler pour atteindre environ 780 000 d'ici 2035, ce qui représentera alors environ 9 % de la population totale de la province. La sténose aortique deviendra donc de plus en plus fréquente et aura une incidence de plus en plus importante sur le système de santé québécois. OBJECTIFS: Les objectifs de cette évaluation sont de: 1. Synthétiser, à l'aide d'une revue systématique, les données probantes récentes sur l'implantation valvulaire aortique par cathéter, par bioprothèse Cribier-Edwards/Edwards SAPIEN et CoreValve chez les patients adultes atteints d'une sténose aortique grave et symptomatique, concernant l'efficacité, l'innocuité et les considérations économiques, en mettant l'accent sur les résultats cliniques à 1 an; et de; 2 Synthétiser, à l'aide d'une revue narrative, les aspects principaux de nature organisationnelle, y compris la sélection des patients avant l'intervention, et les considérations clés concernant les aspects éthiques et les perspectives du patient. MÉTHODES: Une recherche systématique de la littérature scientifique publiée dans la période allant de janvier 2008 à janvier 2011 a été réalisée dans les bases de données bibliographiques, car c'est en 2008 que les résultats cliniques de mortalité à 1 an ont commencé à être publiés. Étant donné la littérature publiée relativement limitée liée aux données des registres, à la qualité de vie et aux enjeux économiques, nous avons aussi retenu quelques présentations orales issues de congrès scientifiques. En utilisant comme principale source d'information les études primaires et les rapports de registres qui présentent la survie à 1 an, nous avons examiné les résultats cliniques, à 30 jours et à 1 an, de patients ayant subi une implantation valvulaire aortique par cathéter. Afin de résumer l'information liée aux questions d'organisation et d'admissibilité des patients, nous avons tiré des renseignements pertinents des sources suivantes : 1) les plus récents documents de consensus d'experts disponibles en Amérique du Nord et en Europe; 2) les rapports d'évaluation des technologies en santé (ETS) publiés de 2008 à 2010 et la mise à jour du document du National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) du Royaume-Uni (de 2011); 3) les études primaires pertinentes relevées au cours de notre recherche documentaire; et 4) une étude primaire clé et l'éditorial qui l'accompagnait, publiés en juin 2011, concernant la cohorte A de l'essai clinique randomisé PARTNER. La sélection des études, l'extraction des données et l'analyse critique des études, à l'aide de grilles établies d'évaluation de la qualité comme guide général, ont été réalisées, d'une manière indépendante, par deux membres de l'équipe de l'INESSS. CONCLUSION: La réalisation d'une évaluation formelle des publications économiques portant sur l'usage de l'implantation valvulaire aortique par cathéter présente plusieurs défis. En premier lieu, un seul document revu par des pairs comportant une évaluation économique de l'implantation par cathéter a été repéré lors de la recherche documentaire. Cette évaluation économique a grandement bénéficié des données économiques extraites du registre belge des patients ayant reçu une implantation par cathéter (coûts d'hospitalisation et coûts ambulatoires). Malgré les forces du document, il n'est pas assuré que les résultats sont transposables au contexte québécois. En deuxième lieu, il existe très peu de données portant sur l'implantation par cathéter faisant état d'au-delà de deux ans de suivi; par conséquent, les coûts et l'efficacité à long terme s'appuyaient sur des projections et des estimations qui viennent des modèles. La validité de ces résultats dépend de la validité des présomptions considérées par les auteurs. La littérature économique actuelle traitant de l'implantation valvulaire aortique par cathéter ne suffit pas pour formuler des recommandations formelles sur les aspects coût-efficacité et coût-utilité de l'adoption d'une telle intervention, chez les patients aux prises avec une sténose aortique grave au Québec. Très peu d'études ont examiné la notion de coût-efficacité d'une façon applicable au système de santé canadien. La publication d'articles revus par des pairs et s'appuyant sur les cohortes A et B de l'étude PARTNER est attendue. Un registre provincial complet évaluant l'efficacité et consignant les coûts pour le système de santé québécois procurerait une plus haute qualité d'information, ce qui permettrait l'analyse économique des implantations par cathéter au Québec.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic valvular stenosis, or narrowing of the valve orifice, is a progressive disease that generally affects patients over the age of 65 years in Western countries and is usually caused by degenerative calcification. Aortic stenosis causes increasing resistance against the ejection of blood from the left ventricle towards the aorta. After symptoms appear (dyspnea, angina, syncope), the disease rapidly progresses causing severe limitation of physical capacity, heart failure, and high risk of mortality. Aortic stenosis represents the third most common cardiovascular disease among adults and the most frequent cardiac valve illness among elderly persons in the industrialized world. Its prevalence is estimated at 2.8% in the population aged 75 and older in the United States. In Quebec, the number of octogenarians will double to about 780,000 persons by 2035, representing about 9% of the total population. Aortic stenosis will thus become more frequent and is expected to have an increasingly important impact on the Quebec health care system. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this evaluation are to: 1. Synthesize, via a systematic review, the recent evidence on effectiveness, safety and economic issues related to TAVI using the Cribier-Edwards / Edwards SAPIEN or CoreValve bioprostheses for adult patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis, with an emphasis on clinical results at 1 year; and to 2. Synthesize, via a narrative review, the principal organizational aspects of delivering this procedure, including the selection of patients before implantation and key considerations concerning ethics and the patient's perspective. METHODS: A systematic search of the scientific literature published between January 2008 and January 2011 was carried out using bibliographic databases, 2008 being the year when clinical results on mortality at 1 year began to become available. Given the relative lack of publications from registries, on quality of life and regarding economic issues, we also selected several oral presentations from scientific conferences. Using primary research articles and registry reports that provided survival data at 1 year as the main source of information, we examined clinical results for TAVI patients at 30 days and at 1 year. In order to summarize issues pertaining to organizational aspects and patient eligibility, we retrieved relevant information from the following sources: 1) the most recent expert consensus documents from North America and Europe; 2) health technology assessment (HTA) reports published between 2008 and 2010, and the 2011 update of a report by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE); 3) relevant articles retrieved from our literature search; and 4) a key research article and accompanying editorial, published in June 2011, concerning cohort A of the PARTNER randomized controlled trial. CONCLUSION: A formal evaluation of economic literature on the use of aortic valvular catheter implantation presents several challenges. First, a single peer-reviewed paper with an economic evaluation of catheter implantation was identified during the literature search. This economic evaluation benefited greatly from the economic data extracted from the Belgian register of patients who received catheter implantation (hospitalization costs and ambulatory costs). Despite the strengths of the document, it is not guaranteed that the results can be transposed to the Quebec context. Second, there is very little data pertaining to catheter implantation reporting more than two years of follow-up; therefore, long-term costs and effectiveness were based on projections and estimates derived from models. The validity of these results depends on the validity of the presumptions considered by the authors. The current economic literature dealing with aortic valvular catheter implantation is not sufficient to formulate formal recommendations on the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility aspects of adopting such an intervention in patients with aortic stenosis in Quebec. Very few studies have examined the concept of cost-effectiveness in a way that is applicable to the Canadian health care system. The publication of peer-reviewed articles based on cohorts A and B of the PARTNER study is expected. A comprehensive provincial registry evaluating efficacy and recording costs for the Quebec health system would provide a better quality of information, which would allow economic analysis of catheter implantations in Quebec.