Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Intermediate and Low Risk Severe Aortic Stenosis Patients in Singapore.

INTRODUCTION: Singapore has the world's second most efficient healthcare system while costing less than 5% GDP. It remains unclear whether transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is cost-effective for treating intermediate-low risk severe aortic stenosis (AS) patients in a highly efficient healthcare system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A two-phase economic model combining decision tree and Markov model was developed to assess the costs, effectiveness, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of transfemoral (TF) TAVI versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-low risk patients over an 8-year time horizon. Mortality and complications rates were based on PARTNER 2 trial cohort A and Singapore life table. Costs were mainly retrieved from Singapore National University Health System database. Health utility data were obtained from Singapore population based on the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). A variety of sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: In base case scenario, the incremental effectiveness of TF-TAVI versus SAVR was 0.19 QALYs. The ICER of TF-TAVI was S$33,833/QALY. When time horizon was reduced to 5 years, the ICER was S$60,825/QALY; when event rates from the propensity analysis was used, the ICER was S$21,732/QALY and S$44,598/QALY over 8-year and 5-year time horizons, respectively. At a willingness to pay threshold of S$73,167/QALY, TF-TAVI had a 98.19% probability of being cost-effective after 100,000 simulations. The model was the most sensitive to the costs of TF-TAVI procedure. CONCLUSION: TF-TAVI is a highly cost-effective option compared to SAVR for intermediate-low risk severe AS patients from a Singapore healthcare system perspective. Increased procedure experience, reduction in device cost, and technology advance may have further increased the cost-effectiveness of TF-TAVI per scenario analysis.

Time needed to resolve patient complaints and factors influencing it: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: There has been an increase in the number and complexity of patient complaints against healthcare institutions. An understanding of the resources needed in this area is important for proper planning. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: A 1250-bed tertiary-care teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patient complaints received between 1 February 2014 and 31 January 2015 were prospectively included in this cohort study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The amount of time spent on the investigation and liaising with the complainant for each case was recorded. The complainant's personal details and characteristics were recorded anonymously. RESULTS: In total, 908 patient complaints were recorded from 801 individuals during the study period. Longer median person-hours were spent on managing complaints that were brought forward by men (1.48 h), those who were distant relatives of the patients (2.08 h), foreigners (1.58 h) and non-subsidised patients (1.83 h). Patient complaints falling into the categories of clinical domain (3.00 h) and patient rights (2.54 h), quality (3.00 h) and safety (2.83 h) required the longest median time to manage. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the total amount of time spent on the complaints was predicted by the gender of the complainant, the relationship of the complainant with the patient, the subsidy status of the patient, the severity and the domain of the complaint. CONCLUSIONS: This study reported the time required to manage patient complaints in a larger tertiary-care academic medical centre. Predictors of the time spent on resolving patient complaints can be used as parameters for resource planning.