The need for future coronary access following surgical or transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

The aim of the study was to estimate the percentage of Medicare patients needing coronary access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary angiography following aortic valve replacement (AVR). Indications for TAVR have expanded to include younger and low-risk patients, raising the question of coronary access for future procedures. Medicare patients <80 years old with an AVR between 2011 and 2018 were included. Time-to-event analyses were conducted using Cox hazard models to estimate risk of coronary access up to 7 years after AVR. Model adjustments included age, sex, race, region, comorbidity, concomitant CABG, and smoking. A total of 13,469 Medicare patients (mean age 70.6) met inclusion criteria. Models estimated that 2.5% of patients at 1-year post-index and 17% at over 7 years would need coronary access. For patients who had SAVR (with or without CABG), estimates for coronary access were similar and over 15% after 6.5 years. For TAVR patients, with a previous PCI, 28% at 4.5 years required coronary access, which was higher than TAVR patients without a previous PCI. SAVR patients with and without CAD at baseline were similar; however, TAVR patients with CAD had a 22% rate of coronary access versus 7% for those without at 3 years. Approximately half of patients who needed coronary access returned to the same hospital as their initial AVR. Coronary access is required in a substantial portion of AVR patients especially those with PCI or a history of CAD undergoing TAVR. The need for coronary access may increase as transcatheter AVR becomes accessible to younger patients with a longer life expectancy.

Contemporary Costs Associated With Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe aortic stenosis, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been shown to be cost-effective in the high-risk surgical population and cost-saving in the intermediate-risk population when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in early pivotal clinical trials. Whether TAVR is associated with comparable or lower costs when compared with SAVR in contemporary clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: Using data from the Medicare Dataset Standard Analytic Files 5% Fee for Service database, patients receiving either TAVR or SAVR between 2016 and 2018 were identified. Patients were categorized as low, intermediate, or high mortality risk based on 2 validated indices-the Hospital Frailty Risk Score and the logEuroScore. Health care costs out to 1 year were compared between TAVR and SAVR among the low, intermediate, and high-risk groups, after adjustment for patient demographics. RESULTS: Nine thousand seven hundred forty-six patients were identified (4834 TAVR; 3760 SAVR) and included in the analysis. Patients receiving TAVR were older and more likely to be female. Index hospitalization costs were significantly lower with TAVR compared with SAVR across all risk strata (logEuroScore: low: $61 845 versus $68 986; intermediate: $64 658 versus $76 965; high: $65 594 versus $91 005; P<0.001 for all). Follow-up costs through 1 year were generally lower with TAVR and this difference was more pronounced in the low risk groups (logEuroScore: $9763 versus $14 073; Hospital Frailty Risk Score: $10 116 versus $12 880). Accordingly, cumulative 1-year costs were substantially lower with TAVR compared with SAVR. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, TAVR is associated with lower health care costs across all risk strata when compared with SAVR in contemporary practice. If long-term data continue to demonstrate similar clinical outcomes and valve durability with TAVR and SAVR, these findings suggest that TAVR may be the preferred treatment strategy for patients with aortic stenosis from an economic standpoint.

Cost-utility and cost-benefit analysis of TAVR availability in the US severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patient population.

AIMS: We evaluated the availability of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) to determine its value across all severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS) patients, especially those untreated because of concerns regarding invasive surgical AVR (SAVR) and its impact on active aging. METHODS: We performed payer perspective cost-utility analysis (CUA) and societal perspective cost-benefit analysis (CBA). The CBA's benefit measure is active time: salaried labor, unpaid work, and active leisure. The study population is a cohort of US elderly SSAS patients. We compared a "TAVR available" scenario in which SSAS patients distribute themselves across TAVR, SAVR, and medical management (MM); and a "TAVR not available" scenario with only SAVR and MM. We structured each scenario with a decision-tree model of SSAS patient treatment allocation. We measured the association between health and active time in the US Health and Retirement Study and used this association to impute active time to SSAS patients given their health. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and rate of return (RoR) of TAVR availability were $8,533 and 395%, respectively. CUA net monetary benefits (NMB) were $212,199 per patient and $43.4 billion population-wide. CBA NMB were $50,530 per patient and $10.3 billion population-wide. LIMITATIONS: Among study limitations were scarcity of evidence regarding key parameters and the lack of long-term survival, health utility, and treatment cost data. Our analysis did not account for TAVR durability, retreatments, and valve-in-valve treatments. CONCLUSION: Across risk-, age-, and treatment-eligibility groups, TAVR is the economically optimal treatment choice. It represents strong value-for-money per patient and population-wide. The vast majority of TAVR value involves raising treatment uptake among the untreated.

Aortic stenosis (AS) is a common and lethal heart disease. Surgical treatment has long been available, but its invasiveness limits uptake. More recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a treatment alternative. Its minimal invasiveness has significantly increased treatment rates, but economic evaluations omit this benefit, risking undervaluation. We evaluated TAVR in elderly US severe symptomatic AS patients, using payer perspective cost-utility analysis (CUA) and societal perspective cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Both CUA and CBA incorporated TAVR's impact on treatment rates. Given patient preferences for treatment options promoting active aging, our CBA used the value of active time as a benefit measure. We found that CUA/CBA net monetary benefits are $212,199/$50,530 per patient. Across risk-, age-, and treatment-eligibility groups, TAVR is the economically optimal treatment choice over surgery and medical management. It represents strong value-for-money per patient and population-wide. Increased treatment uptake accounts for the vast share of TAVR's value.