Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation
Free access
Methodology
10 February 2022

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

Authors: Christopher R Mayhew, Andrew Gallagher https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8090-2239 [email protected], Ariel Bensimhon, Harold L Dauerman https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2414-2612, Mitchell H Tsai, and Jacob A MartinAuthor Info & Affiliations
Volume 11, Number 4
https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2021-0210
PDFFormats

Abstract

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.

Formats available

You can view the full content in the following formats:

View PDFView Full Text

References

1.
Ross J, Braunwald E. Aortic stenosis. Circulation 38(1), 61–67 (1968).
PubMed
Google Scholar
2.
Turina J, Hess O, Sepulcri F, Krayenbuehl HP. Spontaneous course of aortic valve disease. Eur. Heart J. 8(5), 471–483 (1987).
PubMed
Google Scholar
3.
Kelly TA, Rothbart RM, Cooper CM, Kaiser DL, Smucker ML, Gibson RS. Comparison of outcome of asymptomatic to symptomatic patients older than 20 years of age with valvular aortic stenosis. Am. J. Cardiol. 61(1), 123–130 (1988).
PubMed
Google Scholar
4.
Osnabrugge RLJ, Mylotte D, Head SJ et al. Aortic stenosis in the elderly: disease prevalence and number of candidates for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a meta-analysis and modeling study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 62(11), 1002–1012 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
5.
Mack MJ. Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement with a balloon-expandabel valve in low-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 380(18), 1695–1705 (2019).
PubMed
Google Scholar
6.
Lange R, Bleiziffer S, Mazzitelli D et al. Improvements in transcatheter aortic valve implantation outcomes in lower surgical risk patients. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 59(3), 280–287 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
7.
Reynolds MR, Magnuson EA, Lei Y et al. Cost–effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) Trial (Cohort A). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60(25), 2683–2692 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
8.
Ailawadi G, LaPar DJ, Speir AM et al. Contemporary costs associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement: a propensity-matched cost analysis. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 101(1), 154–160 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
9.
Fröhlich GM, Lansky AJ, Webb J et al. Local versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVR) – systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. 12(1), 41 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
10.
Attizzani GF, Alkhalil A, Padaliya B et al. Comparison of outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation using a minimally invasive versus conventional strategy. Am. J. Cardiol. 116(11), 1731–1736 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
11.
Motloch LJ, Rottlaender D, Reda S et al. Local versus general anesthesia for transfemoral aortic valve implantation. Clin. Res. Cardiol. 101(1), 45–53 (2012).
PubMed
Google Scholar
12.
Babaliaros V, Devireddy C, Lerakis S et al. Comparison of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement performed in the catheterization laboratory (minimalist approach) versus hybrid operating room (standard approach): outcomes and cost analysis. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 7(8), 898–904 (2014).
PubMed
Google Scholar
13.
Griese DP, Reents W, Kerber S, Diegeler A, Babin-Ebell J. Emergency cardiac surgery during transfemoral and transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation: incidence, reasons, management, and outcome of 411 patients from a single center. Catheter Cardiovasc. Interv. 82(5), 726–733 (2013).
Google Scholar
14.
Briggs AH, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, UK (2006).
Google Scholar
15.
Muennig P. Cost–effectiveness Analyses in Health: A Practical Approach. Jossey-Bass, CA, USA (2008).
Google Scholar
16.
Mencacci C, Di Sciascio G, Katz P, Ripellino C. Cost–effectiveness evaluation of escitalopram in major depressive disorder in Italy. Clinicoecon. Outcomes Res. 5, 87–99 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
17.
Black WC. The CE Plane. Med. Decis. Making 10(3), 212–214 (1990).
PubMed
Google Scholar
18.
Dittus RS, Roberts SD, Wilson JR. Quantifying uncertainty in medical decisions. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 14(Suppl. 3A), 23–28 (1989).
Google Scholar
19.
Eggebrecht H, Schmermund A, Kahlert P, Erbel R, Voigtländer T, Mehta RH. Emergent cardiac surgery during transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI): a weighted meta-analysis of 9,251 patients from 46 studies. EuroIntervention 8(9), 1072–1080 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
20.
Hein R, Abdel-Wahab M, Sievert H et al. Outcome of patients after emergency conversion from transcatheter aortic valve implantation to surgery. EuroIntervention 9(4), 446–451 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
21.
Seiffert M, Conradi L, Baldus S et al. Severe intraprocedural complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: calling for a heart team approach. Eur. J. Cardio. Thoracic Surg. 44(3), 478–484 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
22.
Smith CR, Leon MB, Mack MJ et al. Transcatheter versus surgical aortic-valve replacement in high-risk patients. N. Engl. J. Med. 364(23), 2187–2198 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
23.
Gray A. Applied methods of cost–effectiveness analysis in health care. Oxford University Press, UK (2011). https://www.herc.ox.ac.uk/downloads/applied-methods-of-cost–effectiveness-analysis-in-healthcare
Google Scholar
24.
Briggs AH, Claxton K, Sculpher MJ. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, UK (2006).
Google Scholar
25.
Briggs AH. Handling uncertainty in cost–effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics 17(5), 479–500 (2000).
PubMed
Google Scholar
26.
Ubel PA, Hirth RA, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. What is the price of life and why doesn't it increase at the rate of inflation? Arch. Intern. Med. 163(14), 1637–1641 (2003).
PubMed
Google Scholar
27.
Kaplan RS, Porter ME. How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89(9), 46–61 (2011).
PubMed
Google Scholar
28.
Eggebrecht H, Bestehorn M, Haude M et al. Outcomes of transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation at hospitals with and without on-site cardiac surgery department: insights from the prospective German aortic valve replacement quality assurance registry (AQUA) in 17 919 patients. Eur. Heart J. 37(28), 2240–2248 (2016).
PubMed
Google Scholar
29.
Cohen DJ, Reynolds MR. Interpreting the results of cost–effectiveness studies. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 52(25), 2119–2126 (2008).
PubMed
Google Scholar
30.
Writing Committee, Rao SV, Vidovich MI, Gilchrist IC et al. 2021 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Same-Day Discharge After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 77(6), 811–825 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
31.
Hyman MC. Conscious sedation versus general anesthesia for transcatheter aortic valve replacement: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Circulation 136(22), 2132–2140 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
32.
Gauthier C, Astarci P, Baele P et al. Mid-term survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results with respect to the anesthetic management and to the access route (transfemoral versus transapical). Ann. Card. Anaesth. 18(3), 343–351 (2015).
PubMed
Google Scholar
33.
Huygens S, Takkenberg J, Molken M. Systemic review of model-based economic evaluations of heart valve implantations. Eur. J. Health Econ. 19(2), 241–255 (2018).
PubMed
Google Scholar
34.
Manolis A. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation econoimcs: a grisly reality. Ann. Cardiothoracic Surg. 6(5), 516–523 (2017).
PubMed
Google Scholar
35.
Orlando R, Pennant M. Cost–effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for aortic stenosis in patients who are high risk or contraindicated for surgery: a model-based economic evaluation. Health Technol. Assess. 17(33), 1–86 (2013).
PubMed
Google Scholar
36.
Otto CM, Nishimura RA, Bonow RO et al. 2020 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 143(5), e72–e227 (2021).
PubMed
Google Scholar
|