Derrick Y Tam1, Avery Hughes2, Stephen E Fremes1, Saerom Youn3, Rebecca L Hancock-Howard3, Peter C Coyte3, Harindra C Wijeysundera4. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Schulich Heart Centre, Department of Surgery, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Program of Child Health Evaluative Services, The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre For Research and Learning, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Program of Child Health Evaluative Services, The Hospital for Sick Children, Peter Gilgan Centre For Research and Learning, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Division of Cardiology, Schulich Heart Centre, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: harindra.wijeysundera@sunnybrook.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation has been shown to be noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy in this population is unknown. Our objective was to conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement in the population with intermediate risk severe aortic stenosis. METHODS: A fully probabilistic Markov model with 30-day cycles was constructed from the Canadian third-party payer's perspective to estimate the difference in cost and effectiveness (measured as quality-adjusted life years) of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for intermediate-risk patients over a lifetime time horizon, discounted at 1.5% per annum. Clinical trial data from The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve 2 informed the efficacy inputs. Costs (adjusted to 2016 Canadian dollars) were obtained from the Canadian Institute of Health Information and the Ontario Schedule of Benefits. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, total lifetime costs for transcatheter aortic valve implantation were $10,548 higher than surgical aortic valve replacement but added 0.23 quality-adjusted life years, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,083/quality-adjusted life-years gained. Deterministic 1-way analyses showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to rates of complications and cost of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation prosthesis. There was moderate-to-high parameter uncertainty; transcatheter aortic valve implantation was the preferred option in only 52.7% and 55.4% of the simulations at a $50,000 and $100,000 per quality-adjusted life years willingness-to-pay thresholds, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of current evidence, transcatheter aortic valve implantation may be cost-effective for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients with intermediate surgical risk. There remains moderate-to-high uncertainty surrounding the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
OBJECTIVE: Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation has been shown to be noninferior to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, the cost-effectiveness of this strategy in this population is unknown. Our objective was to conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation with surgical aortic valve replacement in the population with intermediate risk severe aortic stenosis. METHODS: A fully probabilistic Markov model with 30-day cycles was constructed from the Canadian third-party payer's perspective to estimate the difference in cost and effectiveness (measured as quality-adjusted life years) of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement for intermediate-risk patients over a lifetime time horizon, discounted at 1.5% per annum. Clinical trial data from The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve 2 informed the efficacy inputs. Costs (adjusted to 2016 Canadian dollars) were obtained from the Canadian Institute of Health Information and the Ontario Schedule of Benefits. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, total lifetime costs for transcatheter aortic valve implantation were $10,548 higher than surgical aortic valve replacement but added 0.23 quality-adjusted life years, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $46,083/quality-adjusted life-years gained. Deterministic 1-way analyses showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was sensitive to rates of complications and cost of the transcatheter aortic valve implantation prosthesis. There was moderate-to-high parameter uncertainty; transcatheter aortic valve implantation was the preferred option in only 52.7% and 55.4% of the simulations at a $50,000 and $100,000 per quality-adjusted life years willingness-to-pay thresholds, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of current evidence, transcatheter aortic valve implantation may be cost-effective for the treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients with intermediate surgical risk. There remains moderate-to-high uncertainty surrounding the base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.
Authors: Emanuela S Fioretta; Sarah E Motta; Valentina Lintas; Sandra Loerakker; Kevin K Parker; Frank P T Baaijens; Volkmar Falk; Simon P Hoerstrup; Maximilian Y Emmert Journal: Nat Rev Cardiol Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 32.419
Authors: John K Peel; Rafael Neves Miranda; David Naimark; Graham Woodward; Mamas A Mamas; Mina Madan; Harindra C Wijeysundera Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-04-12 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: V Lorenzoni; G Barbieri; F Saia; F Meucci; G L Martinelli; A G Cerillo; S Berti; P Candolfi; G Turchetti Journal: Eur J Health Econ Date: 2021-05-21