Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in severe aortic stenosis patients at low surgical mortality risk: a cost-effectiveness analysis in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device has recently shown significant clinical benefits, compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in patients at low risk for surgical mortality (PARTNER 3 trial, NCT02675114). Currently in Belgium, TAVI use is restricted to high-risk or inoperable patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS). This cost-utility analysis aimed to assess whether TAVI with SAPIEN 3 could lead to potential cost-savings compared with SAVR, in the low-risk sSAS population in Belgium. METHODS: A previously published, two-stage, Markov-based cost-utility model was used. Clinical outcomes were captured using data from PARTNER 3 and the model was adapted for the Belgian context using cost data from the perspective of the Belgian National Healthcare System, indexed to 2022. A lifetime horizon was chosen. The model outputs included changes in direct healthcare costs, survival and health-related quality of life using TAVI versus SAVR. RESULTS: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 provides meaningful clinical and cost benefits over SAVR, in terms of an increase in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.94 and cost-saving of €3 013 per patient. While initial procedure costs were higher for TAVI compared with SAVR, costs related to rehabilitation, disabling stroke, treated atrial fibrillation, and rehospitalization were lower. The cost-effectiveness of TAVI over SAVR remained robust in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 may offer a meaningful alternative intervention to SAVR in Belgian low-risk patients with sSAS, showing both clinical benefits and cost savings associated with post-procedure patient management.

Comparison of assessment of native coronary arteries by standard versus three-dimensional coronary angiography.

Vessel foreshortening is a major limitation of standard coronary angiography due to the 2-dimensional representation of 3-dimensional structures. Three-dimensional models may overcome it. The aim of this study was to compare measurements of coronary segments from quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in an operator-selected "working view" of standard 2-dimensional coronary angiography with those from 3-dimensional coronary angiography (3D-CA) reconstruction models, which are automatically generated from software applied to rotational coronary angiographic acquisitions. Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention were considered. Two or 3 segments of the artery needing treatment were prespecified, using bifurcations as edges. The operator selected a working view from standard angiography as the view best representing each segment. Rotational angiography was performed, allowing 3-dimensional reconstruction of the selected segments. Additionally a marker guidewire (with 4 markers 10 mm away from one another at the distal tip) was used to further measure segment length, and it was considered the "gold standard" reference. In 36 patients, 81 segments from 12 left anterior descending, 12 circumflex, and 12 right coronary arteries were evaluated. Three-dimensional coronary angiography was always feasible. Although reference vessel diameter was not different between 3D-CA and QCA (p >0.05), segment length measurements were on average 2.3 +/- 2.5 mm longer with 3D-CA than with QCA (p <0.001) and 0.4 +/- 1.8 mm longer than with marker guidewire measurement (p = 0.047). Marker guidewire measurements were 1.9 +/- 2.8 mm longer than QCA measurements (p <0.001). According to Bland-Altman plots, 3D-CA and marker guidewire measurements had the best agreement. In conclusion, 3-dimensional coronary modeling is highly feasible and yields more accurate assessments of the lengths of coronary segments than standard QCA.