Matthew R Reynolds1, Yang Lei2, Kaijun Wang3, Khaja Chinnakondepalli3, Katherine A Vilain3, Elizabeth A Magnuson4, Benjamin Z Galper5, Christopher U Meduri6, Suzanne V Arnold4, Suzanne J Baron4, Michael J Reardon7, David H Adams8, Jeffrey J Popma9, David J Cohen4. 1. Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Cardiology, Lahey Hospital and Medical Center, Burlington, Massachusetts. Electronic address: matthew.reynolds@hcri.harvard.edu. 2. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Kansas; University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas. 3. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Kansas. 4. Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Kansas; University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri. 5. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, Georgia. 7. Houston Methodist DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston, Texas. 8. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 9. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. METHODS: We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S. RESULTS: Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S. STANDARDS: With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. METHODS: We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S. RESULTS: Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S. STANDARDS: With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902).
Authors: Martin B Leon; Craig R Smith; Michael Mack; D Craig Miller; Jeffrey W Moses; Lars G Svensson; E Murat Tuzcu; John G Webb; Gregory P Fontana; Raj R Makkar; David L Brown; Peter C Block; Robert A Guyton; Augusto D Pichard; Joseph E Bavaria; Howard C Herrmann; Pamela S Douglas; John L Petersen; Jodi J Akin; William N Anderson; Duolao Wang; Stuart Pocock Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Matthew R Reynolds; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Kaijun Wang; Yang Lei; Katherine Vilain; Joshua Walczak; Susheel K Kodali; John M Lasala; William W O'Neill; Charles J Davidson; Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon; David J Cohen Journal: Circulation Date: 2012-02-03 Impact factor: 29.690
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: Jeffrey L Anderson; Paul A Heidenreich; Paul G Barnett; Mark A Creager; Gregg C Fonarow; Raymond J Gibbons; Jonathan L Halperin; Mark A Hlatky; Alice K Jacobs; Daniel B Mark; Frederick A Masoudi; Eric D Peterson; Leslee J Shaw Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: David H Adams; Jeffrey J Popma; Michael J Reardon; Steven J Yakubov; Joseph S Coselli; G Michael Deeb; Thomas G Gleason; Maurice Buchbinder; James Hermiller; Neal S Kleiman; Stan Chetcuti; John Heiser; William Merhi; George Zorn; Peter Tadros; Newell Robinson; George Petrossian; G Chad Hughes; J Kevin Harrison; John Conte; Brijeshwar Maini; Mubashir Mumtaz; Sharla Chenoweth; Jae K Oh Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vasilis Babaliaros; Chandan Devireddy; Stamatios Lerakis; Robert Leonardi; Sebastian A Iturra; Kreton Mavromatis; Bradley G Leshnower; Robert A Guyton; Mihir Kanitkar; Patricia Keegan; Amy Simone; James P Stewart; Nima Ghasemzadeh; Peter Block; Vinod H Thourani Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: D J Cohen; H M Krumholz; C A Sukin; K K Ho; R B Siegrist; M Cleman; R R Heuser; J A Brinker; J W Moses; M P Savage Journal: Circulation Date: 1995-11-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Fahad Alqahtani; Sami Aljohani; Khaled Boobes; Elad Maor; Assem Sherieh; Charanjit S Rihal; David R Holmes; Mohamad Alkhouli Journal: Am J Med Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Alexander C Fanaroff; Pratik Manandhar; David R Holmes; David J Cohen; J Kevin Harrison; G Chad Hughes; Vinod H Thourani; Michael J Mack; Matthew W Sherwood; W Schuyler Jones; Sreekanth Vemulapalli Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 6.546
Authors: Sameer A Hirji; Fernando Ramirez-Del Val; Ahmed A Kolkailah; Julius I Ejiofor; Siobhan McGurk; Ritam Chowdhury; Jiyae Lee; Pinak B Shah; Piotr S Sobieszczyk; Sary F Aranki; Marc P Pelletier; Prem S Shekar; Tsuyoshi Kaneko Journal: Ann Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2017-09