OBJECTIVE: With increased life expectancy and improved technology, valve replacement is being offered to increasing numbers of elderly patients with satisfactory clinical results. By using standard econometric techniques, we estimated the relative cost-effectiveness of aortic valve replacement by drawing on a large prospective database at our institution. By using aortic valve replacement as an example, this introductory report paves the way to more definitive studies of these issues in the future. METHODS: From 1961 to 2003, 4617 adult patients underwent aortic valve replacement at our service. These patients were provided with a prospective lifetime follow-up. As of 2005, these patients had accumulated 31,671 patient-years of follow-up (maximum 41 years) and had returned 22,396 yearly questionnaires. A statistical model was used to estimate the future life years of patients who are currently alive. In the absence of direct estimates of utility, quality-adjusted life years were estimated from New York Heart Association class. The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by the patient's age at surgery. RESULTS: The overall cost-effectiveness ratio was approximately 13,528 dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained. The cost-effectiveness ratio increased according to age at surgery, up to 19,826 dollars per quality-adjusted life year for octogenarians and 27,182 dollars per quality-adjusted life year for nonagenarians. CONCLUSIONS: Given the limited scope of this introductory study, aortic valve replacement is cost-effective for all age groups and is very cost-effective for all but the most elderly according to standard econometric rules of thumb.
OBJECTIVE: With increased life expectancy and improved technology, valve replacement is being offered to increasing numbers of elderly patients with satisfactory clinical results. By using standard econometric techniques, we estimated the relative cost-effectiveness of aortic valve replacement by drawing on a large prospective database at our institution. By using aortic valve replacement as an example, this introductory report paves the way to more definitive studies of these issues in the future. METHODS: From 1961 to 2003, 4617 adult patients underwent aortic valve replacement at our service. These patients were provided with a prospective lifetime follow-up. As of 2005, these patients had accumulated 31,671 patient-years of follow-up (maximum 41 years) and had returned 22,396 yearly questionnaires. A statistical model was used to estimate the future life years of patients who are currently alive. In the absence of direct estimates of utility, quality-adjusted life years were estimated from New York Heart Association class. The cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated by the patient's age at surgery. RESULTS: The overall cost-effectiveness ratio was approximately 13,528 dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained. The cost-effectiveness ratio increased according to age at surgery, up to 19,826 dollars per quality-adjusted life year for octogenarians and 27,182 dollars per quality-adjusted life year for nonagenarians. CONCLUSIONS: Given the limited scope of this introductory study, aortic valve replacement is cost-effective for all age groups and is very cost-effective for all but the most elderly according to standard econometric rules of thumb.
Authors: M W A van Geldorp; H J Heuvelman; A P Kappetein; J J V Busschbach; D J Cohen; J J M Takkenberg; A J J C Bogers Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Giovanni Pulignano; Michele Massimo Gulizia; Samuele Baldasseroni; Francesco Bedogni; Giovanni Cioffi; Ciro Indolfi; Francesco Romeo; Adriano Murrone; Francesco Musumeci; Alessandro Parolari; Leonardo Patanè; Paolo Giuseppe Pino; Annalisa Mongiardo; Carmen Spaccarotella; Roberto Di Bartolomeo; Giuseppe Musumeci Journal: Eur Heart J Suppl Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 1.803