Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair versus coronary artery bypass grafting alone for moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation.

OBJECTIVE: The Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network reported that left ventricular reverse remodeling at 2 years did not differ between patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair (n = 150) or coronary artery bypass grafting alone (n = 151). To address health resource use implications, we compared costs and quality-adjusted survival. METHODS: We used individual patient data from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial on survival, hospitalizations, quality of life, and US hospitalization costs to estimate cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years. A microsimulation model was developed to extrapolate to 10 years. Bootstrap and deterministic sensitivity analyses were performed to address uncertainty. RESULTS: In-hospital costs were $59,745 for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair versus $51,326 for coronary artery bypass grafting alone (difference $8419; 95% uncertainty interval, 2259-18,757). Two-year costs were $81,263 versus $67,341 (difference 13,922 [2370 to 28,888]), and quality-adjusted life years were 1.35 versus 1.30 (difference 0.05; -0.04 to 0.14), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $308,343/quality-adjusted life year for coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair. At 10 years, its costs remained higher ($107,733 vs $88,583, difference 19,150 [-3866 to 56,826]) and quality-adjusted life years showed no difference (-0.92 to 0.87), with 5.08 versus 5.08. The likelihood that coronary artery bypass grafting plus mitral valve repair would be considered cost-effective at 10 years based on a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100K/quality-adjusted life year did not exceed 37%. Only when this procedure reduces the death rate by a relative 5% will the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio fall below $100K/quality-adjusted life year. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of mitral valve repair to coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation is unlikely to be cost-effective. Only if late mortality benefits can be demonstrated will it meet commonly used cost-effectiveness criteria.

Cost-Effectiveness of Mitral Valve Repair Versus Replacement for Severe Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: A Randomized Clinical Trial From the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network

BACKGROUND: The CTSN (Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network) recently reported no difference in left ventricular end-systolic volume index or in survival at 2 years between patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) randomized to mitral valve repair or replacement. However, replacement provided more durable correction of MR and fewer cardiovascular readmissions. Yet, costeffectiveness outcomes have not been addressed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of the surgical treatment of ischemic MR based on the CTSN trial (n=126 for repair; n=125 for replacement). Patient-level data on readmissions, survival, qualityof- life, and US hospital costs were used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years per patient over the trial duration and a 10-year time horizon. We performed microsimulation for extrapolation of outcomes beyond the 2 years of trial data. Bootstrap and deterministic sensitivity analyses were done to address parameter uncertainty. In-hospital cost estimates were $78 216 for replacement versus $72 761 for repair (difference: $5455; 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: −7784­21 193) while 2-year costs were $97 427 versus $96 261 (difference: $1166; 95% UI: −16 253­17 172), respectively. Quality-adjusted life years at 2 years were 1.18 for replacement versus 1.23 for repair (difference: −0.05; 95% UI: −0.17 to 0.07). Over 5 and 10 years, the benefits of reduction in cardiovascular readmission rates with replacement increased, and survival minimally improved compared with repair. At 5 years, cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years showed no difference on average, but by 10 years, there was a small, uncertain benefit for replacement: $118 023 versus $119 837 (difference: −$1814; 95% UI: −27 144 to 22 602) and qualityadjusted life years: 4.06 versus 3.97 (difference: 0.09; 95% UI: −0.87 to 1.08). After 10 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness of replacement continued to improve. CONCLUSIONS: Our cost-effectiveness analysis predicts potential savings in cost and gains in quality-adjusted survival at 10 years when mitral valve replacement is compared with repair for severe ischemic MR. These projected benefits, however, were small and subject to variability. Efforts to further delineate predictors of long-term outcomes in patients with severe ischemic MR are needed to optimize surgical decisions for individual patients, which should yield more cost-effective care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00807040.