OBJECTIVE: The only effective treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS) is valve replacement. However, many patients with co-existing conditions are ineligible for surgical valve replacement, historically leaving medical management (MM) as the only option which has a poor prognosis. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive replacement method. The objective was to estimate cost-effectiveness of TAVR via transfemoral access vs MM in surgically inoperable patients with severe AS from the Canadian public healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of TAVR vs MM was conducted using a deterministic decision analytic model over a 3-year time horizon. The PARTNER randomized controlled trial results were used to estimate survival, utilities, and some resource utilization. Costs included the valve replacement procedure, complications, hospitalization, outpatient visits/tests, and home/nursing care. Resources were valued (2009 Canadian dollars) using costs from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative (OCCI), Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Ontario Drug Benefits Formulary, or were estimated using relative costs from a French economic evaluation or clinical experts. Costs and outcomes were discounted 5% annually. The effect of uncertainty in model parameters was explored in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $32,170 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TAVR vs MM. When the time horizon was shortened to 24 and 12 months, the ICER increased to $52,848 and $157,429, respectively. All other sensitivity analysis returned an ICER of less than $50,000/QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: A limitation was lack of availability of Canadian-specific resource and cost data for all resources, leaving one to rely on clinical experts and data from France to inform certain parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that TAVR is cost-effective compared to MM for the treatment of severe AS in surgically inoperable patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The only effective treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS) is valve replacement. However, many patients with co-existing conditions are ineligible for surgical valve replacement, historically leaving medical management (MM) as the only option which has a poor prognosis. Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR) is a less invasive replacement method. The objective was to estimate cost-effectiveness of TAVR via transfemoral access vs MM in surgically inoperable patients with severe AS from the Canadian public healthcare system perspective. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of TAVR vs MM was conducted using a deterministic decision analytic model over a 3-year time horizon. The PARTNER randomized controlled trial results were used to estimate survival, utilities, and some resource utilization. Costs included the valve replacement procedure, complications, hospitalization, outpatient visits/tests, and home/nursing care. Resources were valued (2009 Canadian dollars) using costs from the Ontario Case Costing Initiative (OCCI), Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care and Ontario Drug Benefits Formulary, or were estimated using relative costs from a French economic evaluation or clinical experts. Costs and outcomes were discounted 5% annually. The effect of uncertainty in model parameters was explored in deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $32,170 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained for TAVR vs MM. When the time horizon was shortened to 24 and 12 months, the ICER increased to $52,848 and $157,429, respectively. All other sensitivity analysis returned an ICER of less than $50,000/QALY gained. LIMITATIONS: A limitation was lack of availability of Canadian-specific resource and cost data for all resources, leaving one to rely on clinical experts and data from France to inform certain parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, it can be concluded that TAVR is cost-effective compared to MM for the treatment of severe AS in surgically inoperable patients.
Authors: Fenton H McCarthy; Danielle C Savino; Chase R Brown; Joseph E Bavaria; Vinay Kini; Danielle D Spragan; Taylor R Dibble; Howard C Herrmann; Saif Anwaruddin; Jay Giri; Wilson Y Szeto; Peter W Groeneveld; Nimesh D Desai Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Simone A Huygens; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken; Jos A Bekkers; Ad J J C Bogers; Carlijn V C Bouten; Steven A J Chamuleau; Peter P T de Jaegere; Arie Pieter Kappetein; Jolanda Kluin; Nicolas M D A van Mieghem; Michel I M Versteegh; Maarten Witsenburg; Johanna J M Takkenberg Journal: Open Heart Date: 2016-10-14
Authors: Bart S Ferket; Jonathan M Oxman; Alexander Iribarne; Annetine C Gelijns; Alan J Moskowitz Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Harindra C Wijeysundera; Lindsay Li; Vevien Braga; Nandhaa Pazhaniappan; Anar M Pardhan; Dana Lian; Aric Leeksma; Ben Peterson; Eric A Cohen; Anne Forsey; Kori J Kingsbury Journal: Open Heart Date: 2016-08-16