Abstract
BackgroundTranscatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has a substantial impact on daily cardiovascular care delivery based on issues such as cost effectiveness and economic value within a restricted health care budget. Until now, potential financial benefits of third generation valve models have not been evaluated in a real-world setting. Methods and resultsWe identified 204 eligible patients (Jan 2014-Sep 2016) who either received the balloon-expandable Edwards Sapien 3 (ES3) or the self-expandable Medtronic Evolut R (MER). Baseline information, procedural characteristics, 30-day outcome as well as in-hospital costs and reimbursement were collected and analyzed. The major cost driver was initial valve-kit costs with a significantly higher amount in the ES3 group, which was set at 0 with the lower price (ES3/MER: +4390.0€ ± 3.807.0 vs. 0.0€ ± 734.1; p < 0.01). However, initial valve-kit costs were balanced by additional material costs in the MER cohort. Overall costs did not differ significantly between valve models (ES3/MER: x + 13.808.0€ ± 5.595.0 vs. x + 10.681.0€ ± 4.518.0; p = 0.6885) and reimbursement was moderate (ES3/MER: 1.649.7€ vs. 4776.7€). ConclusionQuality, success rate, and costs were comparable between third generation devices. Initial valve-kit costs were significantly higher in the ES3 group, whereas overall costs did not significantly differ between the two valve types.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have