Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation in aortic stenosis patients at low- and intermediate-surgical risk in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) using the SAPIEN 3 (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA) compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low- and intermediate-risk patients from a Japanese public healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov model cost-effectiveness analysis was developed. Clinical and utility data were extracted from a systematic literature review. Cost inputs were obtained from analysis of the Medical Data Vision claims database and supplemented with a targeted literature search. The robustness of the results was assessed using sensitivity analyses. Scenario analyses were performed to determine the impact of lower mean age (77.5 years) and the effect of two different long-term mortality hazard ratios (TAVI versus SAVR: 0.9-1.09) on both risk-level populations. This analysis was conducted according to the guidelines for cost-effectiveness evaluation in Japan from Core 2 Health. RESULTS: In intermediate-risk patients, TAVI was a dominant procedure (TAVI had lower cost and higher effectiveness). In low-risk patients, the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for TAVI was ¥750,417/quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY), which was below the cost-effectiveness threshold of ¥5 million/QALY. The ICER for TAVI was robust to all tested sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: TAVI was dominant and cost-effective compared to SAVR in intermediate- and low-risk patients, respectively. These results suggest that TAVI can provide meaningful value to Japanese patients relative to SAVR, at a reasonable incremental cost for patients at low surgical risk and potentially resulting in cost-savings in patients at intermediate surgical risk.

Aortic Stenosis (AS) is the most common valvular heart disease in Japan, and, if left untreated, severe symptomatic AS (sSAS) is associated with a dramatic increase in mortality and morbidity. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) is a minimally invasive treatment option for replacing the aortic valve in patients with sSAS and has been associated with similar or better outcomes compared to Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (SAVR), which involves open-heart surgical replacement of the aortic valve. The objective of this study was to compare the costs and health outcomes associated with TAVI compared to SAVR in Japanese patients deemed low- or intermediate-risk for surgery. Despite the expanding use of TAVI in Japan, a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) does not exist that evaluates the economics of TAVI with the current generation SAPIEN 3 implant in patients with low- and intermediate-risk from a public perspective. Our study suggests that TAVI represents strong value for money among low- and intermediate-risk patients in Japan: compared to SAVR, TAVI is associated with better clinical outcomes and quality of life for patients, at a reasonable additional cost for low-risk patients and at a lower cost for intermediate-risk patients.

Análisis coste-efectividad del implante percutáneo de válvula aórtica SAPIEN 3 en pacientes con estenosis aórtica grave sintomática / Cost-effectiveness analysis of the SAPIEN 3 transcatheter aortic valve implant in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis

Introducción y objetivos: El implante percutáneo de la válvula aórtica se ha consolidado como tratamiento de la estenosis aórtica grave inoperable o de alto riesgo quirúrgico. Recientemente las indicaciones se han ampliado a riesgo intermedio y bajo. Nuestro objetivo es evaluar la eficiencia de SAPIEN 3 frente al tratamiento médico conservador (TMC) o el reemplazo quirúrgico de válvula aórtica (RVA) en pacientes sintomáticos inoperables con riesgo alto e intermedio.´Métodos: Análisis de coste-efectividad de SAPIEN 3 frente a RVA/TMC mediante un modelo de Markov (ciclos mensuales) adaptado con 8 estados definidos por la New York Hearth Association y resultados a 15 años, incluidos las complicaciones mayores y el tratamiento tras el alta hospitalaria, desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Los parámetros de efectividad se basan en los estudios PARTNER. Se incluyeron costes sanitarios (en euros de 2019) derivados del procedimiento, hospitalización, complicaciones clínicas y seguimiento. Se aplicó una tasa de descuento anual del 3% en costes y beneficios. El análisis de sensibilidad fue determinístico y probabilístico (Monte Carlo). Resultados: En comparación con el RVA (riesgo alto e intermedio) y el TMC (inoperables), el SAPIEN 3 implicó mejores resultados en las 3 poblaciones y menor estancia. Las tasas de coste-utilidad incremental fueron 5.471 (riesgo alto), 8.119 (riesgo intermedio) y 9.948 (inoperables) euros/años de vida ajustados por calidad ganados. En el análisis probabilístico, el SAPIEN 3 resultó coste-efectivo por encima del 75% de las simulaciones en los 3 perfiles. Conclusiones: En nuestro medio, el SAPIEN 3 permite un tratamiento eficiente de la estenosis aórtica grave tanto en pacientes inoperables como en riesgo alto e intermedio (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve implant has become a widely accepted treatment for inoperable patients with aortic stenosis and patients at high surgical risk. Its indications have recently been expanded to include patients at intermediate and low surgical risk. Our aim was to evaluate the efficiency of SAPIEN 3 vs conservative medical treatment (CMT) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in symptomatic inoperable patients at high or intermediate risk. Methods: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of SAPIEN 3 vs SAVR/CMT, using a Markov model (monthly cycles) with 8 states defined by the New York Heart Association and a time horizon of 15 years, including major complications and management after hospital discharge, from the perspective of the National Health System. Effectiveness parameters were based on the PARTNER trials. Costs related to the procedure, hospitalization, complications, and follow-up were included (euros in 2019). An annual discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and benefits. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (Monte Carlo) were performed. Results: Compared with SAVR (high and intermediate risk) and CMT (inoperable), SAPIEN 3 showed better clinical results in the 3 populations and lower hospital stay. Incremental cost-utility ratios (€/quality-adjusted life years gained) were 5471 (high risk), 8119 (intermediate risk) and 9948 (inoperable), respectively. In the probabilistic analysis, SAPIEN 3 was cost-effective in more than 75% of the simulations in the 3 profiles. Conclusions: In our health system, SAPIEN 3 facilitates efficient management of severe aortic stenosis in inoperable and high- and intermediate-risk patients (AU)

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low surgical risk aortic stenosis patients.

BACKGROUND: The PARTNER 3 trial demonstrated clinical benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device, over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS) at low risk of surgical mortality. Using PARTNER 3 outcomes and Italy-specific costs data, this cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the Italian National Health System aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of SAPIEN 3 TAVI versus SAVR in low risk sSAS patients in Italy. METHODS: A two-stage cost-utility model was developed to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR. Early adverse events associated with TAVI were captured utilising the PARTNER 3 dataset. These data fed into a Markov model that captured longer-term outcomes of patients, following TAVI or SAVR intervention. RESULTS: Analysis findings estimated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 offers benefits over SAVR in terms of increased quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) with only a small increase in costs, representing an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/QALY gained of €2989 per patient. The results were robust, with TAVI with SAPIEN 3 remaining cost-effective across several scenarios and in probabilistic sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This model demonstrated that TAVI with SAPIEN 3 is likely to be cost effective compared with SAVR for the treatment of patients with sSAS who are at low risk of surgical mortality. These findings can inform policy makers to facilitate policy development in Italy on intervention selection for this patient population.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a resource-intensive approach versus minimally invasive strategy for high-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients.

Aortic stenosis has a high mortality rate in patients who do not receive aortic valve replacement. Previously, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was an intervention reserved for individuals deemed high-risk for surgery. Since that time, TAVR has increasingly been offered to lower risk patients, yet it is unclear whether TAVR will meet an acceptable cost-effectiveness threshold in this group. In this cost-effectiveness study, we employed a decision tree model with Monte Carlo probability sensitivity analysis to determine the incremental cost (in US$) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY) of performing the TAVR procedure using the resource-intensive approach versus the minimally invasive strategy in high-risk surgical patients.

Uncovering the treatable burden of severe aortic stenosis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the population prevalence and treatable burden of severe aortic stenosis (AS) in the UK. METHODS: We adapted a contemporary model of the population profile of symptomatic and asymptomatic severe AS in Europe and North America to estimate the number of people aged ≥55 years in the UK who might benefit from surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). RESULTS: With a point prevalence of 1.48%, we estimate that 291 448 men and women aged ≥55 years in the UK had severe AS in 2019. Of these, 68.3% (199 059, 95% CI 1 77 201 to 221 355 people) would have been symptomatic and, therefore, more readily treated according to their surgical risk profile; the remaining 31.7% of cases (92 389, 95% CI 70 093 to 144 247) being asymptomatic. Based on historical patterns of intervention, 58.4% (116 251, 95% CI 106 895 to 1 25 606) of the 199 059 symptomatic cases would qualify for SAVR, with 7208 (95% CI 7091 to 7234) being assessed as being in a high, preoperative surgical risk category. Among the remaining 41.6% (82 809, 95% CI 73 453 to 92 164) of cases potentially unsuitable for SAVR, an estimated 61.7% (51 093, 95% CI 34 780 to 67 655) might be suitable for TAVI. We estimate that 172 859 out of 291 448 prevalent cases of severe AS (59.3%) will subsequently die within 5 years without proactive management. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a high burden of severe AS in the UK requiring surgical or transcatheter intervention that challenges the ongoing capacity of the National Health Service to meet the needs of those affected.

Introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology increases overall aortic valve surgical volume: Evaluating the Florida experience.

OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology is increasingly used for aortic valve stenosis. We sought to evaluate the adoption of transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology with respect to overall surgical aortic valve replacement volume in Florida. METHODS: The 2010-2019 Florida Agency for Health Care Administration data set was queried. Difference-in-difference analysis was used to evaluate the impact of transcatheter aortic valve replacement on the total aortic valve surgical volume of transcatheter aortic valve replacement versus nonperforming hospitals. Length of stay and elements of charges were compared for the raw and 1:1 propensity matched data. RESULTS: A total of 46,032 surgical aortic valve procedures were performed at 88 hospitals. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement performing hospitals experienced a 21% increase in total aortic valve surgical volume. Length of stay was significantly less for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Propensity matched transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients had less gross total charges. CONCLUSION: Introduction of transcatheter aortic valve replacement technology significantly increased overall surgical aortic valve volume and may be associated with less gross total hospital charges.

Real-World Health-Economic Considerations Around Aortic-Valve Replacement in a Publicly Funded Health System.

Herein, we describe the unique interplay among biomedical ethics, principles of distributive justice, and economic theory to highlight the role of health technology assessments to compare therapeutic options for aortic valve replacement. From the perspective of the Canadian health care system, transcatheter aortic-valve implantation is associated with higher costs but also higher incremental health benefits compared with surgical aortic-valve replacement. At current willingness to pay thresholds, transcatheter aortic-valve replacement is likely cost effective across the spectrum of risk, from inoperable patients to those at low surgical risk. However, we highlight the nuances within each subgroup of surgical risk that merit careful consideration by the heart team. Moreover, incorporation of patients and their preferences in decision-making is key. In particular, in young, low-risk patients, there remains uncertainty regarding the optimal treatment, with unique concerns around valve durability, selection of valve prosthesis, and consideration for special procedures such as the Ross procedure. Nonetheless, current research suggests that, universally, patients prefer a less invasive approach compared with a more invasive approach. Finally, we highlight that there remain critical issues around timeliness of access to care and unacceptable geographic inequities across Canada. Further research into alternative funding mechanisms and integrated cross-sector care pathways is necessary to address these issues.

A Real-World Comparison of 1-Year Survival and Expenditures for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacements: SAPIEN 3 Versus CoreValve Versus Evolut R.

OBJECTIVES: New versions of balloon-expandable and self-expandable valves for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been developed, but few studies have examined the outcomes associated with these devices using national-level data. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical and economic outcomes of TAVR for aortic stenosis in Japan through an analysis of real-world data. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed using data from patients with aortic stenosis who had undergone transfemoral TAVR with Edwards SAPIEN 3, Medtronic CoreValve, or Medtronic Evolut R valves throughout Japan from April 2016 to March 2018. Pacemaker implantation, mortality, and health expenditure were examined for each valve type during hospitalization and at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year. Generalized linear regression models and Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine the associations between the valve types and outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 7244 TAVR cases (SAPIEN 3: 5276, CoreValve: 418, and Evolut R: 1550) across 145 hospitals. The adjusted 1-year expenditures for SAPIEN 3, CoreValve, and Evolut R were $79 402, $76 125, and $75 527, respectively; SAPIEN 3 was significantly more expensive than the other valves (P < .05). The pacemaker implantation hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for CoreValve and Evolut R were significantly higher (P < .001) than SAPIEN 3 at 2.61 (2.07-3.27) and 1.80 (1.53-2.12), respectively. The mortality hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for CoreValve and Evolut R were not significant at 1.11 (0.84-1.46) and 1.22 (0.97-1.54), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SAPIEN 3 users had generally lower pacemaker implantation and mortality but higher expenditures than CoreValve and Evolut R users.

Economic assessment of traditional surgical valve replacement versus use of transfemoral intervention in degenerative aortic stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to provide an economic assessment of interventional vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in the context of cost-effectiveness. Aortic stenosis represents the most common form of degenerative valvular heart diseases. As life expectancy increases, an even emerging prevalence is expected. Over decades, surgical replacement was considered as the method of choice. Up to one third of the patients were not eligible for surgery, as their estimated peri-operative risk was too high. In the early 2000s a catheter-based technique has been developed, being an alternative treatment option for patients, considered to be inoperable. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic analysis of current literature was performed from September 2018 to December 2018. All suitable data in the field was obtained from Pubmed and Google/Google scholar. The search terms "TAVI AND costs," "TAVR and costs" and "aortic valve replacement AND costs" was entered in the search field, showing an overall amount of 317 publications. In a next step all obtained publications were screened by expert hand selection. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Recently the Food and Drug Association (FDA) approved transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the low-risk setting. Nevertheless, concerns on the higher price remain. We performed an analysis of current literature on aortic stenosis and economic aspects. Out of 322 screened publications, 7 studies were found eligible by expert hand selection. Based on the predefined payment readiness of the analyzed healthcare system, TAVR appeared to have a slightly better cost effectiveness. Initial results within the early era seemed to be inconsistent. Recent publications showed, TAVR might be of more cost effectiveness when using the newest generation devices and a profound clinical experience is guaranteed. CONCLUSIONS: We assume, that TAVR will not only be the method of choice for the treatment of aortic stenosis in many patients. As the valves are getting cheaper, TAVR might even be superior to conventional heart surgery from an economic point of view.

Analysis of the Changing Economics of US Hospital Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Programs.

New technologies in medicine, even if they are promising medically, are often expensive and logistically difficult to implement at the hospital level. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a model technology that is revolutionary in treating aortic stenosis, but has been plagued with significant challenges with financial sustainability. In this article, a margin analysis at the hospital level was performed using literature data. A TAVR industry analysis was performed using Porter's Five Forces framework. The data indicate that TAVR is more expensive than surgical aortic valve replacement, although the cost of TAVR is declining with the use of an optimized minimalist protocol. The overall industry is growing as its clinical indications expand, and it will likely undergo significant reduction of costs when new valves enter the US market. As such, TAVR is a growing industry, with financial sustainability currently dependent on operational efficiency. A concluding list of specific program interventions is provided to help TAVR programs improve operational efficiency and clinical outcomes, as well as help decide whether to create, expand, or redirect funding for TAVR programs. Importantly, the frameworks used to analyze this rapidly evolving technology can be applied to other new technologies to determine financial sustainability.

Long-term Healthcare Expenditures Over Time for Tissue and Mechanical Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines currently indicate the use of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) to treat severe cases of aortic stenosis, particularly for low- to medium-risk patients. Although several studies have compared health outcomes of tissue and mechanical SAVR, this economic simulation model estimates the difference in long-term healthcare costs associated with tissue relative to mechanical SAVR. METHODS: The deterministic and Monte Carlo simulation models used literature-based epidemiologic and cost inputs to calculate annual expenditures related to SAVR for up to 25 years after initial surgery. A series of 3 cohort studies across different age groups provided the health outcome probabilities for tissue valve patients. Outcome probabilities for mechanical valve patients were based on relative risks reported in comparative meta-analyses or large cohort studies. RESULTS: Relative to mechanical SAVR the expected net discounted savings for a patient receiving tissue SAVR at ages 45, 55, and 65 years were $12,266, $15,462, and $16,008, respectively (based on 2018 US dollars) over a 25-year horizon (95% confidence intervals exceed $0). For a 45-year-old tissue SAVR patient, the estimated per-patient cost difference (relative to mechanical SAVR) of reoperation over 25 years ($16,201) were offset by expected savings on anticoagulation monitoring ($26,257) over the same period. In a sensitivity analysis in which mortality risk was assumed equal, significant long-term savings associated with tissue SAVR still accrued in each of the 3 age cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Payers, providers, and the healthcare system may financially benefit from the use of tissue valves because significant savings were associated with the use of tissue valves relative to mechanical valves for SAVR.

Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with end stage renal disease.

OBJECTIVE: To assess contemporary national trends of comorbidities, outcomes, and health care resource utilization in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) undergoing transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement (TAVR and SAVR). METHODS AND RESULTS: The National-Inpatient-Sample was used to study trends in patients with AS and ESRD undergoing TAVR and SAVR between January 2012 and December 2017. Of 12,550 patients, 5,735 underwent TAVR and 6,815 underwent SAVR. Over the years, the utilization of SAVR declined (from 82.0 to 37.7%); and increased for TAVR (from 18.0 to 62.3%; p < .001). Patients receiving TAVR were older (74.6 [9.1] vs. 66.8 years [9.1]), had a higher proportion of females (37.1 vs. 32.5%), Caucasians (68.7 vs. 60.9%) and Asian /Pacific Islanders (3.1 vs. 2.7%; p < .001 for all). The TAVR patients, despite having higher comorbidity burden (anemia, coronary artery disease, chronic pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral vascular disease) had lower inpatient mortality and complications (ST-elevation myocardial infarction, pneumonia, pneumothorax, pulmonary embolism, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and need for mechanical ventilators and vasopressors). The median length of stay (13.9-6.5 days; p < .001) and cost of stay ($311,538.16 to $255,693.40; p < .001) reduced with TAVR; but remained unchanged with SAVR. Higher proportion of patients was discharged home after TAVR vs. SAVR. CONCLUSION: Among patients with AS and ESRD, despite providing therapy to subjects with higher comorbidity burden, TAVR was associated with lower inpatient mortality, complications, length of stay, cost of care, and higher home disposition rates when compared with SAVR.

Predictors of Cumulative Health Care Costs Associated With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: There is wide variation in hospitalization costs for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), suggesting inefficiency in care delivery. Our goal was to identify drivers of health care costs in TAVR. METHODS: Demographics, procedural details, in-hospital complications, and costs for all adults undergoing first-time TAVR from 2012 to 2016 in Ontario, Canada, were obtained through linkages of clinical/administrative databases. Total costs included were from initial referral to the first of either death or 1-year post-TAVR. Phase-based costing was performed to empirically estimate the presence, duration, and cost per patient for each phase up to 1 year or death. Multivariable regression was used to identify drivers of cost accumulation per phase. RESULTS: We identified 2009 first-time TAVR patients (mean age 81.7 ± 7.6, 45.9% female and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) score of 7.2 ± 5.8). Phases of cost were identified with an early high-cost period within 60 days of referral, a second phase from the procedure to 60 days, and a stable phase from 60 to 360 days postprocedure. The referral phase median cost was $4527 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1708-12,594), the procedure to 60 days phase median cost was $29,518 (IQR: 24,842-40,279), and the post 60-day stable phase median cost was $6053 (IQR: 3320-17,048). Predictors of higher cost in the referral phase were in-hospital wait location, dialysis dependence, and heart-failure status. In the second (procedural) phase, predictors were nontransfemoral access, complications of stroke, and pacemaker insertion. Predictors of higher cost in the third (stable) phase were predominantly nonmodifiable, such as frailty. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows that there are 3 distinct phases of cost accumulation from referral to post-TAVR with some potentially modifiable cost drivers in each phase.

Relative Costs of Surgical and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Medical Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients treated for aortic valve disease in the United States is increasing rapidly. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is supplanting surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and medical therapy (MT). The economic implications of these trends are unknown. Therefore, we undertook to determine the costs, inpatient days, and number of admissions associated with treating aortic valve disease with SAVR, TAVR, or MT. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified patients with aortic valve disease admitted 2012 to 2016 for SAVR, TAVR, and disease symptoms (congestive heart failure, unstable angina, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, syncope). Patients not undergoing SAVR or TAVR were classified as receiving MT. Beginning with the index admission, we estimated inpatient costs, days, and admissions over 6 months. RESULTS: Among 190 563 patients with aortic valve disease, the average aggregate 6-month inpatient costs were $59 743 for SAVR, $64 395 for TAVR, and $23 460 for MT. Mean index admission was longer for SAVR (10.0 days) than for TAVR (7.0 day) or MT (5.3 days), but the average number of unplanned readmission inpatient days was 2.0 for SAVR, 3.0 for TAVR, and 4.3 for MT; the average number of total admissions was 1.3 for SAVR, 1.5 for TAVR, and 1.7 for MT (P<0.01 for all). TAVR index admission costs decreased over time to become similar to SAVR costs by 2016. CONCLUSIONS: Aggregate costs were higher for TAVR than SAVR and were significantly more expensive than MT alone. However, TAVR costs decreased over time while SAVR and MT costs remained unchanged.

Clinical value of the 20% logistic EuroSCORE cut-off for selecting TAVI candidates: a single-centre cohort study analysis.

Background: A logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (logEuroSCORE) ≥20% is frequently recognised as a finite criteria for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) reimbursement, despite guideline modifications to reflect the appropriacy of TAVI in selected lower-risk patients. The aim was to evaluate the clinical value of this threshold cut-off in TAVI patients and to identify factors associated with mortality in those below this threshold. Methods: We analysed data from a single-centre, German, observational, TAVI-patient registry, gathered between 2008 and 2016. Patients were stratified by logEuroSCORE (≥ or <20%) for comparisons. Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of mortality at 1 year, with this analysis used to generate a calculated ('real') risk value for each patient. Results: 1679 patients (logEuroSCORE <20%: n=789; logEuroSCORE ≥20%: n=890) were included. LogEuroSCORE <20% patients were significantly younger (80.1 vs 81.6 years; p<0.001) and less comorbid than logEuroSCORE ≥20% patients, with a higher rate of transfemoral TAVI (35.6% vs 26.1%; p<0.001) and predilation (70.0% vs 63.3%; p=0.004). Patients with a logEuroSCORE <20% experienced more vascular complications (3.4% vs 1.5%; p=0.010). One-year survival was 88.3% in the logEuroSCORE <20% and 81.8% in the logEuroSCORE ≥20% group (p=0.005), with the calculated mortality risk falling within 2% of the logEuroSCORE in just 12.9% of patients. In the logEuroSCORE <20% group, only coronary artery disease was significantly predictive of 1-year mortality (OR 2.408; 95% CI 1.361 to 4.262; p=0.003). Conclusions: At our institution, patients with a logEuroSCORE <20% selected for TAVI have excellent outcomes. The decision not to reimburse TAVI in such patients may be viewed as inappropriate.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients With Severe, Symptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis at Intermediate Surgical Risk: A Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is the conventional treatment in patients at low or intermediate surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive procedure, originally developed as an alternative for patients at high or prohibitive surgical risk. METHODS: We conducted a health technology assessment of TAVI versus SAVR in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, budget impact, and patient preferences and values. We performed a literature search to retrieve systematic reviews and selected one that was relevant to our research question. We complemented the systematic review with a literature search to identify randomized controlled trials published after the review. Applicable, previously published cost-effectiveness analyses were available, so we did not conduct a primary economic evaluation. We analyzed the net budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in people at intermediate surgical risk in Ontario. To contextualize the potential value of TAVI for people at intermediate surgical risk, we spoke with people who had aortic valve stenosis and their families. RESULTS: We identified two randomized controlled trials; they found that in patients with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis, TAVI was noninferior to SAVR with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke within 2 years of follow-up (GRADE: High). However, compared with SAVR, TAVI had a higher risk of some complications and a lower risk of others. Device-related costs for TAVI (approximately $23,000) are much higher than for SAVR (approximately $6,000). Based on two published cost-effectiveness analyses conducted from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, TAVI was more expensive and, on average, more effective (i.e., it produced more quality-adjusted life-years) than SAVR. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios showed that TAVI may be cost-effective, but the probability of TAVI being cost-effective versus SAVR was less than 60% at a willingness-to-pay value of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The net budget impact of publicly funding TAVI in Ontario would be about $2 million to $3 million each year for the next 5 years. This cost may be reduced if people receiving TAVI have a shorter hospital stay (≤ 3 days). We interviewed 13 people who had lived experience with aortic valve stenosis. People who had undergone TAVI reported reduced physical and psychological effects and a shorter recovery time. Patients and caregivers living in remote or northern regions reported lower out-of-pocket costs with TAVI because the length of hospital stay was reduced. People said that TAVI increased their quality of life in the short-term immediately after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: In people with severe, symptomatic aortic valve stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was similar to SAVR with respect to the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or disabling stroke. However, the two treatments had different patterns of complications. The study authors also noted that longer follow-up is needed to assess the durability of the TAVI valve. Compared with SAVR, TAVI may provide good value for money, but publicly funding TAVI in Ontario would result in additional costs over the next 5 years. People with aortic valve stenosis who had undergone TAVI appreciated its less invasive nature and reported a substantial reduction in physical and psychological effects after the procedure, improving their quality of life.

Economic value of transcatheter valve replacement for inoperable aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVES: To project the social value of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for inoperable patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS). STUDY DESIGN: This study used an economic model with parameters obtained from the literature and from US Census Bureau population projections. METHODS: Our model estimated the economic value that will accrue to inoperable patients with SSAS and to device manufacturers as a result of TAVR utilization. We estimated individual patient value as the monetized gain in quality-adjusted life-years as estimated in the cost-effectiveness literature, net of device costs and cost offsets. We estimated manufacturer value by applying an assumed profit margin to revenue from device sales. We created population-level estimates by combining these individual-level estimates with age-stratified Census Bureau population projections and estimates of the incidence of AS. We assessed model uncertainty through the use of probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Between 2018 and 2028, approximately 465,000 inoperable Americans with SSAS will be treated with TAVR. These procedures will yield a cumulative social benefit of up to $48 billion, with roughly 80% of that benefit accruing to patients and 20% accruing to device manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS: Policy makers and payers should take this social value into account when considering decisions related to the care of inoperable patients with SSAS.

Impact of COPD on outcomes in hospitalized patients treated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation or surgical aortic valve replacement in Spain.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and conventional surgery (SAVR) among hospitalized patients with and without COPD, to compare the in-hospital mortality (IHM), length of hospital stay (LOHS) and cost between patients with COPD undergoing TAVI and SAVR and to identify factors associated to IHM among these patients. BACKGROUND: TAVI would be expected to be less invasive and safer than SAVR among COPD patients. METHODS: We analyzed patients whose medical procedures included TAVI and SAVR included in the Spanish National Hospital Discharge Database, 2014-2015. We stratified analysis by COPD status. Propensity score matching (1:2) was performed to assess the outcomes of TAVI vs. SAVR among COPD patients. RESULTS: We identified 2,141 and 16,013 patients who underwent TAVI (27.60% with COPD) and SAVR (19.31% with COPD) respectively. For TAVI, we found no differences in IHM according to COPD status. Patients undergoing SAVR and suffering COPD had higher IHM than patients without COPD (adj.OR 1.32; 95%CI 1.10-1.58). After propensity score matching, IHM (8.35% vs. 5.83%, p = .040) and LOHS (18.62 days vs. 13.62; p < .001) were higher in COPD patients who underwent SAVR than those who underwent TAVI. CONCLUSIONS: COPD patients undergoing TAVI did not have a worse prognosis compared to non-COPD patients during hospitalization. However, for SAVR, patients with COPD had significantly higher mortality than patients without this condition. COPD patients who underwent SAVR had higher IHM and LOHS than propensity score matched TAVI patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Using a Balloon-Expandable Valve in Japan: Experience From the Japanese Pilot Health Technology Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an innovative and effective treatment in high-surgical-risk (HR) and inoperable patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis. OBJECTIVES: This cost-effectiveness analysis of transfemoral TAVI (TF-TAVI) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) conforms with the methodological guidelines for cost-effectiveness evaluation by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare in Japan. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of TF-TAVI using SAPIEN XT was evaluated using a lifetime Markov simulation from the national payer perspective. Comparators were SAVR for HR patients and standard of care (SOC) for inoperable patients. A systematic literature review for clinical evidence of TF-TAVI and comparators was conducted. The evidence for TF-TAVI was derived from the SOURCE XT registry and Japanese post marketing surveillance. Because there was no literature directly or indirectly comparing TF-TAVI using SAPIEN XT with comparators, the comparator data were selected from relevant published studies, considering the similarity of study eligibility criteria and patient backgrounds (eg, age and surgical risk scores). Sensitivity analyses were used to validate the robustness of results. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TF-TAVI versus SAVR for HR patients was ¥1.3 million/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TF-TAVI versus SOC for inoperable patients was ¥3.5 million/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: TF-TAVI was cost-effective when compared with SAVR for HR patients and when compared with SOC for inoperable patients, using a threshold of ¥5 million/QALY.

Relation of Frailty to Cost for Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

Frailty is associated with significant morbidity and mortality for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). In addition to clinical outcomes, cost is an important factor to inform clinical decision-making around TAVI. However, the association of frailty with cost is unknown. This study tested whether frailty was associated with cost for adult patients who underwent TAVI at a moderate-volume single center between December 2012 and April 2018 (n = 431). Frailty was determined from pre-TAVI clinical visits as a composite of 2 markers: 5-meter walk time (abnormal: >6 seconds or unable to perform) and serum albumin (abnormal: <3.5 g/dl). Patients were excluded if missing frailty assessment or covariate data (24). Cost data were derived from financial statements, and assigned at the department-level by charge code. Multivariable regression models were adjusted for age, gender, and procedural co-morbidities. Of 407 patients in the analytical sample (mean age 81 years, 49% female), 74 (18%) were determined to be frail. Adjusted mean total costs were $6,397 higher for frail patients ($78,823 vs $72,425, p = 0.042) compared with nonfrail. Higher total costs were driven by department-level charges associated with longer in-hospital length of stay (7.6 vs 3.3 days, p <0.001): room, physical therapy, pharmacy, laboratory, supply, and imaging services. Providers must address frailty proactively to salvage the benefit associated with TAVI.