Contemporary Costs Associated With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Propensity-Matched Cost Analysis

Abstract

The Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve (PARTNER) trial suggested an economic advantage for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for high-risk patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost effectiveness of TAVR in the "real world" by comparing TAVR with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients. A multiinstitutional database of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) (2011 to 2013) linked with estimated cost data was evaluated for isolated TAVR and SAVR operations (n = 5,578). TAVR-treated patients (n = 340) were 1:1 propensity matched with SAVR-treated patients (n = 340). Patients undergoing SAVR were further stratified into intermediate-risk (SAVR-IR: predicted risk of mortality [PROM] 4% to 8%) and high-risk (SAVR-HR: PROM >8%) cohorts. Median STS PROM for TAVR was 6.32% compared with 6.30% for SAVR (SAVR-IR 4.6% and SAVR-HR 12.4%). A transfemoral TAVR approach was most common (61%). Mortality was higher for TAVR (10%) compared with SAVR (6%, p < 0.047), whereas the SAVR group accrued higher major morbidity (27% vs 14%, p < 0.001) and longer postoperative hospital duration (7 days vs 6 days, p < 0.001). Importantly, TAVR incurred twice the median total costs compared with SAVR ($69,921 vs $33,598, p < 0.001). The increased cost of TAVR was largely driven by the cost of the valve (all p < 0.001). Intermediate-risk patients undergoing SAVR demonstrated the most exaggerated cost savings versus TAVR. TAVR was associated with greater total costs and mortality compared with SAVR in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients while conferring lower major morbidity and improved resource use. Increased cost of TAVR appears largely related to the cost of the valve. Until the price of TAVR valves decreases, these data suggest that TAVR may not provide the most cost-effective strategy, particularly for intermediate-risk patients.