The economic value of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via full sternotomy
Abstract
Aim: To compare the economic value of EDWARDS INTUITY Elite™ (EIE) valve system for rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) in a full sternotomy (FS) approach (EIE-FS-RDAVR) versus FS-AVR using conventional stented bioprosthesis. Data & methods: A simulation model to compare each treatment's 30-day inpatient utilization and complication rates utilized: clinical end points obtained from the TRANSFORM trial patient subset (EIE-FS-RDAVR) and a best evidence review of the published literature (FS-AVR); and costs from the Premier database and published literature. Results: EIE-FS-RDAVR costs $800 less than FS-AVR per surgery episode attributable to lowered complication rates and utilization. Combined with the lower mortality, EIE-FS-RDAVR was a superior (dominant) technology versus FS-AVR. Conclusion: This preliminary investigation of EIE-FS-RDAVR versus conventional FS-AVR found the EIE valve offered superior economic value over a 30-day period. Real-world analyses with additional long-term follow-up are needed to evaluate if this result can be replicated over a longer timeframe.
Formats available
You can view the full content in the following formats:
References
Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest
1.
Clark MA, Duhay FG, Thompson AK et al. Clinical and economic outcomes after surgical aortic valve replacement in Medicare patients. Risk Manag. Healthcare Pol. 5, 117–126 (2012).
2.
Borger MA, Moustafine V, Conradi L et al. A randomized multicenter trial of minimally invasive rapid deployment versus conventional full sternotomy aortic valve replacement. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 99(1), 17–25 (2015).
• One of the earliest papers that reported the hemodynamic benefits of rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) versus full sternotomy (conventional) aortic valve replacement (FS-AVR) using a conventional stented bioprosthesis. Although the aortic valve replacement (AVR) was conducted via a minimally invasive approach, the paper details the design and concept of the valve used for RDAVR.
3.
Bonacchi M, Prifti E, Giunti G, Frati G, Sani G. Does ministernotomy improve postoperative outcome in aortic valve operation? A prospective randomized study. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 73(2), 460–465; discussion 465–466 (2002).
4.
Brown ML, Mckellar SH, Sundt TM, Schaff HV. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 137(3), 670–679, e675 (2009).
5.
Machler HE, Bergmann P, Anelli-Monti M et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve operations: a prospective study in 120 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 67(4), 1001–1005 (1999).
6.
Borger MA, Dohmen P, Misfeld M, Mohr FW. Current trends in aortic valve replacement: development of the rapid deployment EDWARDS INTUITY valve system. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 10(4), 461–470 (2013).
7.
Al-Sarraf N, Thalib L, Hughes A et al. Cross-clamp time is an independent predictor of mortality and morbidity in low- and high-risk cardiac patients. Int. J. Surg. 9(1), 104–109 (2011).
• The importance of cross-clamp time (CCT) is highlighted in this study. One of the benefits of the RDAVR approach is that it facilitates the surgery and reduces the trauma time. This was observed in the utilization rates of the TRANSFORM trial and the benefits of the lowered CCT are brought forth in the Al-Sarraf study.
8.
Chitwood WR Jr, Barnhart GRR, Accola KD et al. TRANSFORM US clinical trial: safety and performance of a rapid deployment aortic valve. Presented at: American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) Annual Meeting. Baltimore Convention Center, Baltimore, MD, USA, 14–18 May 2016.
•• Reported the clinical end points of the TRANSFORM trial subset relevant to our study.
9.
Halpern NA, Pastores SM. Critical care medicine in the United States 2000–2005: an analysis of bed numbers, occupancy rates, payer mix, and costs. Crit. Care Med. 38, 65–71 (2010).
10.
Kaiser Family Foundation. Hospital Adjusted Expenses per Inpatient Day (2014). http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/expenses-per-inpatient-day/
11.
Basraon J, Chandrashekhar YS, John R et al. Comparison of risk scores to estimate perioperative mortality in aortic valve replacement surgery. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 92(2), 535–540 (2011).
12.
Bakir I, Casselman FP, Wellens F et al. Minimally invasive versus standard approach aortic valve replacement: a study in 506 patients. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 81(5), 1599–1604 (2006).
13.
Tabata M, Aranki SF, Fox JA, Couper GS, Cohn LH, Shekar PS. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement in left ventricular dysfunction. Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann. 15(3), 225–228 (2007).
14.
Corbi P, Rahmati M, Donal E et al. Prospective comparison of minimally invasive and standard techniques for aortic valve replacement: initial experience in the first hundred patients. J. Card. Surg. 18(2), 133–139 (2003).
15.
Furukawa N, Kuss O, Aboud A et al. Ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: matched propensity score analysis of 808 patients. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 46(2), 221–226; discussion 226–227 (2014).
16.
Klokocovnik T, Kersnik Levart T, Bunc M. Double venous drainage through the superior vena cava in minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: a retrospective study. Croat. Med. J. 53(1), 11–16 (2012).
17.
Lamelas J, Sarria A, Santana O, Pineda AM, Lamas GA. Outcomes of minimally invasive valve surgery versus median sternotomy in patients age 75 years or greater. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 91(1), 79–84 (2011).
18.
Murzi M, Cerillo AG, Bevilacqua S, Gilmanov D, Farneti P, Glauber M. Traversing the learning curve in minimally invasive heart valve surgery: a cumulative analysis of an individual surgeon's experience with a right minithoracotomy approach for aortic valve replacement. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 41(6), 1242–1246 (2012).
19.
Neely RC, Boskovski MT, Gosev I et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement versus aortic valve replacement through full sternotomy: the Brigham and Women's Hospital experience. Ann. Cardiothorac. Surg. 4(1), 38–48 (2015).
20.
Ruttmann E, Gilhofer TS, Ulmer H et al. Propensity score-matched analysis of aortic valve replacement by mini-thoracotomy. J. Heart Valve Dis. 19(5), 606–614 (2010).
21.
Sharony R, Grossi EA, Saunders PC et al. Propensity score analysis of a six-year experience with minimally invasive isolated aortic valve replacement. J. Heart Valve Dis. 13(6), 887–893 (2004).
22.
Bowdish ME, Hui DS, Cleveland JD et al. A comparison of aortic valve replacement via an anterior right minithoracotomy with standard sternotomy: a propensity score analysis of 492 patientsdagger. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 49(2), 456–463 (2016).
23.
Ghanta RK, Lapar DJ, Kern JA et al. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement provides equivalent outcomes at reduced cost compared with conventional aortic valve replacement: a real-world multi-institutional analysis. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 149(4), 1060–1065 (2015).
24.
Gilmanov D, Bevilacqua S, Murzi M et al. Minimally invasive and conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 96(3), 837–843 (2013).
25.
Glauber M, Miceli A, Gilmanov D et al. Right anterior minithoracotomy versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a propensity score matched study. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 145(5), 1222–1226 (2013).
26.
Glower DD, Desai BS, Hughes GC, Milano CA, Gaca JG. Aortic valve replacement via right minithoracotomy versus median sternotomy: a propensity score analysis. Innovations (Phila) 9(2), 75–81; discussion 81 (2014).
27.
Mahesh B, Navaratnarajah M, Mensah K, Ilsley C, Amrani M. Mini-sternotomy aortic valve replacement: is it safe and effective? Comparison with standard techniques. J. Heart Valve Dis. 20(6), 650–656 (2011).
28.
Sansone F, Punta G, Parisi F et al. Right minithoracotomy versus full sternotomy for the aortic valve replacement: preliminary results. Heart Lung Circ. 21(3), 169–173 (2012).
29.
Stamou SC, Kapetanakis EI, Lowery R, Jablonski KA, Frankel TL, Corso PJ. Allogeneic blood transfusion requirements after minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a risk-adjusted analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 76(4), 1101–1106 (2003).
30.
Vanoverbeke H, Van Belleghem Y, Francois K, Caes F, Bove T, Van Nooten G. Operative outcome of minimal access aortic valve replacement versus standard procedure. Acta Chir. Belg. 104(4), 440–444 (2004).
31.
Korach A, Shemin RJ, Hunter CT, Bao Y, Shapira OM. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a 10-year experience. J. Cardiovasc. Surg. (Torino) 51(3), 417–421 (2010).
32.
Calderon J, Richebe P, Guibaud JP et al. Prospective randomized study of early pulmonary evaluation of patients scheduled for aortic valve surgery performed by ministernotomy or total median sternotomy. J. Cardiothorac. Vasc. Anesth. 23(6), 795–801 (2009).
33.
De Smet JM, Rondelet B, Jansens JL, Antoine M, De Canniere D, Le Clerc JL. Assessment based on EuroSCORE of ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement. Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann. 12(1), 53–57 (2004).
34.
Farhat F, Lu Z, Lefevre M, Montagna P, Mikaeloff P, Jegaden O. Prospective comparison between total sternotomy and ministernotomy for aortic valve replacement. J. Card. Surg. 18(5), 396–401; discussion 402–393 (2003).
35.
Moustafa MA, Abdelsamad AA, Zakaria G, Omarah MM. Minimal vs median sternotomy for aortic valve replacement. Asian Cardiovasc. Thorac. Ann. 15(6), 472–475 (2007).
36.
Ahangar AG, Charag AH, Wani ML et al. Comparing aortic valve replacement through right anterolateral thoracotomy with median sternotomy. Int. Cardiovasc. Res. J. 7(3), 90–94 (2013).
37.
Suenaga E, Suda H, Katayama Y et al. Comparison of limited and full sternotomy in aortic valve replacement. Jpn. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 52(6), 286–291 (2004).
38.
Dogan S, Dzemali O, Wimmer-Greinecker G et al. Minimally invasive versus conventional aortic valve replacement: a prospective randomized trial. J. Heart Valve Dis. 12(1), 76–80 (2003).
39.
Foghsgaard S, Schmidt TA, Kjaergard HK. Minimally invasive aortic valve replacement: late conversion to full sternotomy doubles operative time. Tex. Heart Inst. J. 36(4), 293–297 (2009).
40.
Folliguet TA, Laborde F, Zannis K, Ghorayeb G, Haverich A, Shrestha M. Sutureless perceval aortic valve replacement: results of two European centers. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 93(5), 1483–1488 (2012).
41.
Candaele S, Herijgers P, Demeyere R, Flameng W, Evers G. Chest pain after partial upper versus complete sternotomy for aortic valve surgery. Acta Cardiol. 58(1), 17–21 (2003).
42.
Likosky DS, Sorensen MJ, Dacey LJ et al. Long-term survival of the very elderly undergoing aortic valve surgery. Circulation 120(11 Suppl. 1), S127–S133 (2009).
• Evaluated the long-term survival among post-AVR patients while stratifying across different surgery types (e.g., isolated AVR, AVR + coronary artery bypass grafting, among others) and adjusting for patient and comorbid characteristics. Our study used the median survival time reported in this paper for calculating potential survival times and life years gained among the treatment arms.
43.
Moore M, Barnhart GR, Chitwood WR Jr et al. The economic value of INTUITY in aortic valve replacement. J. Med. Econ. 19(10), 1011–1017 (2016).
•• This cost study was preliminary economic investigation of the INTUITY ELITE valve. A similar methodology to the one used in the current study was first presented in this study which compared the EDWARDS INTUITY Elite™ valve system deployed for RDAVR via a minimally invasive approach against minimally invasive and conventional AVR procedures.
44.
Diehr P, Yanez D, Ash A, Hornbrook M, Lin DY. Methods for analyzing health care utilization and costs. Ann. Rev. Public Health 20, 125–144 (1999).
• Provides an in-depth synopsis about the distribution of different utilization and cost parameters which formed the basis for the cost and utilization parameter assumptions in our simulation model.
45.
Mozaffarian D, Benjamin EJ, Go AS et al. Executive summary: heart disease and stroke statistics-2016 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 133(4), 447–454 (2016).
46.
Lung B, Baron G, Butchart EG et al. A prospective survey of patients with valvular heart disease in Europe: the Euro Heart Survey on Valvular Heart Disease. Eur. Heart J. 24(13), 1231–1243 (2003).
47.
Varadarajan P, Kapoor N, Bansal RC, Pai RG. Survival in elderly patients with severe aortic stenosis is dramatically improved by aortic valve replacement: results from a cohort of 277 patients aged > or = 80 years. Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg. 30(5), 722–727 (2006).
48.
Ortman JM, Velkoff VA, Hogan H. An aging nation: the older population in the United States, Current Population Reports, P25-1140. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC, USA (2014).
49.
Riffkin R. Gallup Poll, 2014. Average US Retirement Age Rises to 62. www.gallup.com/poll/168707/average-retirement-age-rises.aspx
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© Moore et al.
History
Published online: 4 April 2017
Keywords:
Topics
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Article Usage
Article usage data only available from February 2023. Historical article usage data, showing the number of article downloads, is available upon request.
Citations
How to Cite
The economic value of rapid deployment aortic valve replacement via full sternotomy. (2017) Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research. DOI: 10.2217/cer-2016-0064
Export citation
Select the citation format you wish to export for this article or chapter.
Citing Literature
- M. Stolz, J. Schmetsdorf, I. Tomsic, T. von Lengerke, I.F. Chaberny, C. Krauth, Costs of surgical site infections in orthopaedic and trauma surgery: a systematic review, Journal of Hospital Infection, 10.1016/j.jhin.2025.11.008, 169, (42-58), (2026).
- Unchalee Permsuwan, Seri Singhatanadgige, Kawinnooch Boonpipattanapong, Worawong Slisatkorn, Angsu Chartrungsan, Prompak Nitayavardhana, Nutthawadee Luangthong, Pramote Porapakkham, Jirawit Yadee, Cost-utility analysis of sutureless and rapid deployment versus conventional aortic valve replacement in patients with moderate to severe aortic stenosis in Thailand, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0296875, 19, 1, (e0296875), (2024).
- Aleksander Dokollari, Gianluca Torregrossa, Serge Sicouri, Altin Veshti, Rafik Margaryan, Matteo Cameli, Giulia Elena Mandoli, Massimo Maccherini, Gianfranco Montesi, Francesco Cabrucci, Lindita Coku, Rakesh Arora, Qiao Ri Li, Massimo Bonacchi, Sandro Gelsomino, Pearls, pitfalls, and surgical indications of the Intuity TM heart valve: A rapid deployment bioprosthesis. A systematic review of the literature, Journal of Cardiac Surgery, 10.1111/jocs.17231, 37, 12, (5411-5417), (2022).
- Tyler J. Beute, Matthew D. Oram, Timothy M. Schiller, Matthew Goehler, Jessica Parker, Charles L. Willekes, Tomasz Timek, Use of an Automated Suture Fastening Device in Minimally Invasive Aortic Valve Replacement, The Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.01.073, 106, 1, (58-62), (2018).
- Lauren K. Toney, Richard D. Kim, Swetha R. Palli, The Economic Value of Hybrid Single‐photon Emission Computed Tomography With Computed Tomography Imaging in Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis, Academic Emergency Medicine, 10.1111/acem.13247, 24, 9, (1110-1123), (2017).