Avoidable costs of stenting for aortic coarctation in the United Kingdom: an economic model.

BACKGROUND: Undesirable outcomes in health care are associated with patient harm and substantial excess costs. Coarctation of the aorta (CoA), one of the most common congenital heart diseases, can be repaired with stenting but requires monitoring and subsequent interventions to detect and treat disease recurrence and aortic wall injuries. Avoidable costs associated with stenting in patients with CoA are unknown. METHODS: We developed an economic model to calculate potentially avoidable costs in stenting treatment of CoA in the United Kingdom over 5 years. We calculated baseline costs for the intervention and potentially avoidable complications and follow-up interventions and compared these to the costs in hypothetical scenarios with improved treatment effectiveness and complication rates. RESULTS: Baseline costs were £16 688 ($25 182) per patient. Avoidable costs ranged from £137 ($207) per patient in a scenario assuming a 10% reduction in aortic wall injuries and reinterventions at follow-up, to £1627 ($2455) in a Best-case scenario with 100% treatment success and no complications. Overall costs in the Best-case scenario were 90.2% of overall costs at Baseline. Reintervention rate at follow-up was identified as most influential lever for overall costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a considerable degree of uncertainty for avoidable costs with widely overlapping 95% confidence intervals. CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in the treatment effectiveness and reductions in complication rates are required to realize discernible cost savings. Up to 10% of total baseline costs could be avoided in the best-case scenario. This highlights the need to pursue patient-specific treatment approaches which promise optimal outcomes.

Bicuspid aortic valve disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of surgical aortic valve repair.

Aortic valve repair is still emerging, and its role in the treatment of bicuspid aortic valve disease (BAVD) is not yet fully understood. Our objective is to synthesise available evidence on outcomes after surgical aortic valve repair in patients with BAVD. We conducted a systematic review of clinical studies using prespecified methods for searching, identifying and selecting eligible studies in 4 databases, and synthesising results (PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014415). 2 researchers independently reviewed full-text articles and extracted data. The results of included studies were quantitatively synthesised in frequentist meta-analyses. We included 11 aortic valve repair studies or study arms with a total of 2010 participants. Pooled estimates for the proportion of patients surviving at 30 days, 1 year, 5 years and 10 years were 0.995 (95% CI 0.991 to 0.995), 0.994 (0.989 to 0.999), 0.945 (0.898 to 0.993) and 0.912 (0.845 to 0.979), respectively. The pooled proportion of late deaths from valve-related causes was 0.008 (0.000 to 0.019) at a mean follow-up of 3.5 years. Proportion of patients with valve-related reinterventions was 0.075 (0.037 to 0.113) at a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, and the linearised reintervention rate was 1.3 (0.7 to 1.9) per 100 patient-years. Outcome reporting was insufficient to pool the results for a number of predefined outcomes. In conclusion, existing evidence on aortic valve repair in BAVD is limited to mostly small case series, case-control and small retrospective cohort studies. Despite the low quality, available evidence suggests favourable survival outcomes after aortic valve repair in selected patients with BAVD. Valve-related reinterventions at follow-up are common in all patients undergoing repair surgery.

Balloon Dilatation and Stenting for Aortic Coarctation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is no systematic assessment of available evidence on effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of balloon dilatation and stenting for aortic coarctation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched 4 online databases to identify and select relevant studies of balloon dilatation and stenting for aortic coarctation based on a priori criteria (PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014418). We quantitatively synthesized results for each intervention from single-arm studies and obtained pooled estimates for relative effectiveness from pairwise and network meta-analysis of comparative studies. Our primary analysis included 15 stenting (423 participants) and 12 balloon dilatation studies (361 participants), including patients ≥10 years of age. Post-treatment blood pressure gradient reduction to ≤20 and ≤10 mm Hg was achieved in 89.5% (95% confidence interval, 83.7-95.3) and 66.5% (44.1-88.9%) of patients undergoing balloon dilatation, and in 99.5% (97.5-100.0%) and 93.8% (88.5-99.1%) of patients undergoing stenting, respectively. Odds of achieving ≤20 mm Hg were lower with balloon dilatation as compared with stenting (odds ratio, 0.105 [0.010-0.886]). Thirty-day survival rates were comparable. Numerically more patients undergoing balloon dilatation experienced severe complications during admission (6.4% [2.6-10.2%]) compared with stenting (2.6% [0.5-4.7%]). This was supported by meta-analysis of head-to-head studies (odds ratio, 9.617 [2.654-34.845]) and network meta-analysis (odds ratio, 16.23, 95% credible interval: 4.27-62.77) in a secondary analysis in patients ≥1 month of age, including 57 stenting (3397 participants) and 62 balloon dilatation studies (4331 participants). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations of the evidence base consisting predominantly of single-arm studies, our review indicates that stenting achieves superior immediate relief of a relevant pressure gradient compared with balloon dilatation.