Cost-effectiveness of aortic valve replacement in the elderly: An introductory study

Markov Model for Selection of Aortic Valve Replacement Versus Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (Without Replacement) in High-Risk Patients

The following are highlights from the new series, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Topic Reviews. This series will summarize the most important manuscripts, as selected by the Editor, which have been published in the Circulation portfolio. The objective of this new series is to provide our readership with a timely, comprehensive selection of important papers that are relevant to the quality and outcomes as well as general cardiology audience. The studies included in this article represent the most significant research in the area of valvular heart disease. ( Circ Cardiovasc Quality and Outcomes . 2012;5:-e103.) In recent years, no field of clinical cardiology has experienced a great influx of transformational therapeutic options as has the area of valvular heart disease. Treatment of severe aortic stenosis (AS) has been revolutionized by transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which has been shown to improve life expectancy and functional outcomes in patients with inoperable AS1,2 and to have short-term outcomes comparable to surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients at high perioperative risk.3,4 Analogously, mitral valve disease has been amenable to percutaneous valve replacement,5,6 as well as clipping procedures7 that can substantively reduce severe mitral regurgitation (MR) and improve functional outcomes. Even right-sided heart disease involving valves in pulmonary8,9 and tricuspid10 positions has been treated successfully with endovascular techniques. Yet, even with this growing focus on percutaneous valvular interventions, open surgical techniques remain the dominant treatment strategies and standard of care for most advanced lesions. Surgical valve repair and replacement account for 10% to 20% of all cardiac surgical procedures,11–13 approximately two thirds of which are for AS.11–13 For patients undergoing surgery, there remains considerable debate about risk stratification,14 intraoperative technique,15 and postoperative …

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains debated as an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of aortic valve replacement strategies in low- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in China. A decision-analytic model combining decision tree and Markov model was developed to compare outcomes of universal SAVR, universal TAVR, and a risk-based strategy (SAVR in low-risk patients and TAVR in intermediate-risk patients) in a hypothetical cohort of 75-year-old patients with aortic stenosis within the perspective of the Chinese health care system. A meta-analysis was performed to derive the clinical inputs; the 2019 to 2021 claims data from Shaanxi Province were used for cost analysis, and quality of life was measured using EuroQoL-5D. One-way and probabilistic (10 000 Monte Carlo simulations) sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the robustness of model results. Primary outcomes included total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Universal TAVR gained the most QALYs (6.76 QALYs) with the highest costs (USD 58 949). Compared with universal SAVR, the risk-based strategy gained 0.12 additional QALYs at higher costs (USD 14 046); the ICER (117 048 USD/QALY) exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold (37 657 USD/QALY, 3-fold gross domestic product per capita in China). The ICER of universal TAVR versus universal SAVR (80 526 USD/QALY) also exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold. Sensitivity analysis showed that universal TAVR would be cost-effective if TAVR valve costs were <USD 21 477 (>44.23% cost reduction). Subgroup analysis showed that universal TAVR and risk-based strategy remained not cost-effective compared with universal SAVR in both low-risk (ICER of 64 414 USD/QALY) and intermediate-risk (ICER of 124 851 USD/QALY) patients. In 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations, the probabilities of being cost-effective for universal SAVR, universal TAVR, and risk-based strategy were 89.81%, 10.14%, and 0.05%, respectively. The risk-based strategy and universal TAVR appeared not to be cost-effective versus universal SAVR in low- and intermediate-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in China.

Cost-effectiveness analysis in cardiac surgery: A review of its concepts and methodologies

Cost Analysis of Trans-oral Robotic Surgery Versus Radiation (+/-Chemotherapy) for Locally Advanced Tonsillar Cancer

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Current Decision-Analytic Models and Future Opportunities

Senile calcific aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common acquired valvular heart disease with an increasing prevalence attributable to an aging population. Survival is poor in patients with severe or critical AS, chiefly after the onset of symptomology that primarily includes angina, dyspnea, or syncope. On the onset of symptoms, mortality occurs at very high rates during the ensuing 2 to 3 years.1 Until recently, surgical aortic valve replacement represented the sole therapy that definitive reduced mortality and morbidity in patients with severe symptomatic AS, with medical therapy generally ineffective of these patients. Given the advanced age commonly associated with severe AS, a high proportion of these patients are denied surgical intervention because of multiple comorbidities and excessively high surgical risk.2 Recently, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has emerged as a novel disruptive technology that serves an alternative therapy to surgical AVR and has been shown to be an effective therapy in nonoperable and high-risk patients with severe symptomatic AS.3,4 TAVR was first described in humans by Cribier et al in 20025 by a transvenous approach delivered in an antegrade fashion. This technique requires a transseptal puncture and passage of the aortic stent valve across the mitral valve to the aortic position. Subsequently, array of alternative transvascular approaches have arisen, including transfemoral, transaortic, trans-subclavian, and aortic methods. Of these, the retrograde transarterial approach through the femoral artery, developed by Webb et al,6 has been the commonly used approach, with >60 000 such procedures performed worldwide to date. To date, the global experience with TAVR as documented in both single and multicenter registries as well as through multicenter trials have shown good clinical outcomes with improvement in hemodynamic and clinical status, establishing TAVR to be a feasible alternative therapy to traditional surgical aortic valve …

Objective: To create personalized estimates of future health and ability status for older adults. Method: Data came from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), a large longitudinal study. Outcomes included years of life, years of healthy life (based on self-rated health), years of able life (based on activities of daily living), and years of healthy and able life. We developed regression estimates using the demographic and health characteristics that best predicted the four outcomes. Internal and external validity were assessed. Results: A prediction equation based on 11 variables accounted for about 40% of the variability for each outcome. Internal validity was excellent, and external validity was satisfactory. The resulting CHS Healthy Life Calculator (CHSHLC) is available at http://healthylifecalculator.org. Conclusion: CHSHLC provides a well-documented estimate of future years of healthy and able life for older adults, who may use it in planning for the future.

Systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Combined valve replacement and myocardial revascularization

ObjectivesIn young and middle-aged adults, there are three current options for aortic valve replacement (AVR), namely mechanical AVR (mechAVR), tissue AVR (biological AVR) and the Ross operation, with no clear...

To compare the societal costs and the (quality-adjusted) life expectancy of patients with rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision (TME) with or without short-term preoperative radiotherapy (5 x 5 Gy). We used a Markov model to project the clinical and economic outcomes of preoperative radiotherapy. Data on local recurrence rates, quality of life, and costs were obtained from the patients of a multicenter randomized clinical trial. In this trial, 1,861 patients with resectable rectal cancer from 108 hospitals were randomly assigned for TME surgery with or without preoperative radiotherapy. Outcome measures of the model were life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, lifetime costs per patient, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The base case model estimates that the loss of quality of life due to preoperative radiotherapy is outweighed by the gain in life expectancy. Life expectancy increases by 0.67 years; quality-adjusted life expectancy, by 0.39 years; and costs, by $9,800 per patient. The corresponding cost-effectiveness ratio is $25,100 per quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analyses indicate that the cost-effectiveness ratio remains acceptable under a wide range of assumptions. Assuming that the reduced local recurrence rate does lead to a survival advantage, the cost-utility analysis estimates that the improved survival outweighs the impaired quality of life and the increased costs. We conclude that short-term preoperative radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer undergoing TME is both effective and cost-effective.

Use of the Carpentier-Edwards porcine bioprosthesis: Assessment of a patient selection policy

AimsA Markov model was adapted to assess the real-world cost-effectiveness of rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban. Each of these non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants was compared with vitamin K antagonist for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation in Spain.MethodsAll inputs were derived from real-world studies: baseline patient characteristics, clinical event rates, as well as persistence rates for the vitamin K antagonist treatment option. A meta-analysis of real-world studies provided treatment effect and persistence data for rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban, each compared with vitamin K antagonist therapy. The model considered 3-month cycles over a lifetime horizon. The model outcomes included different costs, quality-adjusted life years and life-years gained. Sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model.ResultsWhen compared with vitamin K antagonist, rivaroxaban incurred incremental costs of €77 and resulted in incremental quality-adjusted life years of 0.08. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was €952. For the same comparison, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year for dabigatran was €4,612. Finally, compared with vitamin K antagonist, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year for apixaban was €32,015. The sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the base case results. The probabilities to be cost-effective versus vitamin K antagonist were 94%, 86% and 35%, respectively, for rivaroxaban, dabigatran and apixaban, considering a willingness-to-pay threshold of €22,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained, based on a cost-effectiveness study of the Spanish National Health System.ConclusionThese results suggest that rivaroxaban and dabigatran are cost-effective versus vitamin K antagonist for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation, from the Spanish National Health System perspective.

Current evidence for prosthesis selection: What can we really say?