BACKGROUND: The incremental cost-effectiveness of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is ill-defined in high-risk patients where aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an option, and has not been ascertained outside a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to examine the progression of patients between health states, defined as peri- and post-procedural, post-complication, and death. The mean and variance of risks, transition probabilities, utilities and cost of transapical TAVI, high-risk AVR, and medical management were derived from analysis of relevant registries. Outcome and cost were derived from 10,000 simulations. Sensitivity analyses further evaluated the impact of mortality, stroke, and other commonly observed outcomes. RESULTS: In the reference case, both transapical TAVI and high-risk AVR and TAVI were cost-effective when compared to medical management ($44,384/QALY and $42,637/QALY, respectively). Transapical TAVI failed to meet accepted criteria for incremental cost-effectiveness relative to AVR, which was the dominant strategy. In sensitivity analyses, the mortality rates related to the two strategies, the utilities post-AVR and post-transapical TAVI, and the cost of transapical TAVI, were the main drivers of model outcome. CONCLUSION: Transapical TAVI did not satisfy current metrics of incremental cost-effectiveness relative to high-risk AVR in the reference case. However, it may provide net health benefits at acceptable cost in selected high-risk patients among whom AVR is the standard intervention.
BACKGROUND: The incremental cost-effectiveness of transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is ill-defined in high-risk patients where aortic valve replacement (AVR) is an option, and has not been ascertained outside a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to examine the progression of patients between health states, defined as peri- and post-procedural, post-complication, and death. The mean and variance of risks, transition probabilities, utilities and cost of transapical TAVI, high-risk AVR, and medical management were derived from analysis of relevant registries. Outcome and cost were derived from 10,000 simulations. Sensitivity analyses further evaluated the impact of mortality, stroke, and other commonly observed outcomes. RESULTS: In the reference case, both transapical TAVI and high-risk AVR and TAVI were cost-effective when compared to medical management ($44,384/QALY and $42,637/QALY, respectively). Transapical TAVI failed to meet accepted criteria for incremental cost-effectiveness relative to AVR, which was the dominant strategy. In sensitivity analyses, the mortality rates related to the two strategies, the utilities post-AVR and post-transapical TAVI, and the cost of transapical TAVI, were the main drivers of model outcome. CONCLUSION: Transapical TAVI did not satisfy current metrics of incremental cost-effectiveness relative to high-risk AVR in the reference case. However, it may provide net health benefits at acceptable cost in selected high-risk patients among whom AVR is the standard intervention.
Authors: Eugene A Grossi; Charles F Schwartz; Pey-Jen Yu; Ulrich P Jorde; Gregory A Crooke; Juan B Grau; Greg H Ribakove; F Gregory Baumann; Patricia Ursumanno; Alfred T Culliford; Stephen B Colvin; Aubrey C Galloway Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Peter Wenaweser; Thomas Pilgrim; Nadja Roth; Alexander Kadner; Stefan Stortecky; Bindu Kalesan; Fabienne Meuli; Lutz Büllesfeld; Ahmed A Khattab; Christoph Huber; Balthasar Eberle; Gabor Erdös; Bernhard Meier; Peter Jüni; Thierry Carrel; Stephan Windecker Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon; Michael J Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; Mathew Williams; Todd Dewey; Samir Kapadia; Vasilis Babaliaros; Vinod H Thourani; Paul Corso; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart J Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-06-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: J P Puvimanasinghe; E W Steyerberg; J J Takkenberg; M J Eijkemans; L A van Herwerden; A J Bogers; J D Habbema Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-03-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Sujatha Kesavan; Aamer Iqbal; Yusra Khan; Jonathan Hutter; Katie Pike; Chris Rogers; Mark Turner; Mandie Townsend; Andreas Baumbach Journal: World J Cardiol Date: 2011-11-26
Authors: Suzanne V Arnold; Yang Lei; Matthew R Reynolds; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Rakesh M Suri; E Murat Tuzcu; John L Petersen; Pamela S Douglas; Lars G Svensson; Hemal Gada; Vinod H Thourani; Susheel K Kodali; Michael J Mack; Martin B Leon; David J Cohen Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-10-21 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Klaus Kaier; Holger Reinecke; Huseyin Naci; Lutz Frankenstein; Martin Bode; Werner Vach; Philip Hehn; Andreas Zirlik; Manfred Zehender; Jochen Reinöhl Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2017-02-22
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: Klaus Kaier; Anja Gutmann; Hardy Baumbach; Constantin von Zur Mühlen; Philip Hehn; Werner Vach; Friedhelm Beyersdorf; Manfred Zehender; Christoph Bode; Jochen Reinöhl Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 3.186