An exploratory cost-effectiveness analysis of a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical valves for surgical aortic valve replacement in subgroups of people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Exploratory analysis to conceptualize and evaluate the potential cost-effectiveness and economic drivers of using a novel tissue valve compared with mechanical heart valves for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in people aged 55-64 and 65+ with aortic stenosis (AS) from a National Health Service (NHS) UK perspective. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed using a partitioned survival model. Parameter inputs were obtained from published literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (DSA and PSA) were conducted to explore the uncertainty around the parameters. RESULTS: The novel tissue valve was potentially associated with higher quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.01 per person. Potential cost savings were greatest for those aged 55-64 (£408) versus those aged 65+(£53). DSA indicated the results to be most dependent on relative differences in general mortality, procedure costs, and reoperation rates. PSA estimated around 75% of the iterations to be cost-effective at £20,000 per QALY for those aged 55-64, and 57% for those aged 65+. CONCLUSIONS: The exploratory analysis suggests that the novel tissue valve could be a cost-effective intervention for people over the age of 55 with AS who are suitable for SAVR in the UK.

Budget impact analysis of a bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in adult patients with aortic stenosis in Romania.

AIMS: An analysis of the budget impact of using a bovine pericardial aortic bioprosthesis (BPAB) or a mechanical valve (MV) in aortic stenosis (AS) patients in Romania. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision-tree with a partitioned survival model was used to predict the financial outcomes of using either a BPAB (the Carpentier-Edwards Perimount Magna Ease Valve) or MV in aortic valve replacement (AVR) procedure over a 5-year period. The budget impact of various resource consumption including disabling strokes, reoperations, minor thromboembolic events, major bleeding, endocarditis, anticoagulation treatment and monitoring, and echocardiogram assessments were compared for both types of valves. One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were conducted on the input costs and probabilities. RESULTS: The use of BPAB compared to MV approaches budget neutrality due to incremental savings year-on-year. The initial surgical procedure and reoperation costs for BPAB are offset by savings in acenocoumarol use, disabling strokes, major bleeding, minor thromboembolic events, and anticoagulation complications. The cost of the initial procedure per patient is 460 euros higher for a BPAB due to the higher valve acquisition cost, although this is partially offset by a shorter hospital stay. The OWSA shows that the total procedure costs, including the hospital stay, are the primary cost drivers in the model. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by cost data aggregation in the DRG system, exclusion of costs for consumables and capital equipment use, possible underestimation of outpatient complication costs, age-related variations of event rates, and valve durability. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting BPAB as a treatment option for AS patients in Romania can lead to cost savings and long-term economic benefits. By mitigating procedure costs and increasing anticoagulation treatment costs, BPAB offers a budget-neutral option that can help healthcare providers, policymakers, and patients alike manage the growing burden of AS in Romania.