RESUMEN
This review provides an in-depth analysis of the effect of length of stay (LOS), comorbidities, and procedural complications on the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We found that the average LOS was shorter for patients undergoing TAVR, contributing to lower average costs associated with the procedure, although the LOS varied between patients due to the severity of illness and comorbidities present. TAVR has also been found to improve the quality of life for patients receiving aortic valve replacement compared to SAVR. Although TAVR has a lower rate of most post-operative complications caused by SAVR, such as bleeding and cardiac complications, TAVR shows an increased rate of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation due to mechanical trauma on the heart's conduction system. In addition, our findings suggest that the cost-effectiveness of each procedure varies based on the types of valve, the patient history of other medical conditions, and the procedural methods. Our findings show that TAVR is preferred over SAVR in terms of cost-effectiveness across a variety of patients with other coexisting medical conditions, including cancer, advanced kidney disease, cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, and bundle branch block. TAVR also appears to be superior to SAVR with fewer post-operative complications. However, TAVR appears to have a higher rate of PPM implantation rates as compared to SAVR. The comorbidities of the valve recipient must be considered when deciding whether to use TAVR or SAVR as cost-effectiveness varies with the patient background.
RESUMEN
The cost of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has been studied in the context of high-risk or specific comorbidity populations; this paper provides a comprehensive overview of broader patient populations' outcomes and costs with TAVR in comparison to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). In the past, SAVR had been the more cost-effective option than TAVR, but in recent years, TAVR has been becoming more cost-effective.Though the cost of TAVR can vary due to several factors the major focus of this review will focus on the surgical technique, medicare reimbursements, insertion point, and varying risk populations. In conclusion, the price of TAVR is declining as more cost-efficient valves arrive on the market. Climbing healthcare costs play a significant role in clinical decisions when deciding on which procedures are most cost-effective for the patient and healthcare system. The declining price of TAVR could lead to the preference of TAVR over SAVR for both low-risk and high-risk aortic stenosis patients.