Search

Introduction and objectives: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) was first introduced in 2007 as an alternative to open heart surgery to treat patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS) with various indication expansions since that date. Recently, the PARTNER 3 study (Placement of aortic transcatheter valve) demonstrated clinical benefits with TAVI with the SAPIEN 3 valve vs surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in selected low surgical mortality risk patients. We reviewed data from the PARTNER 3 and economic data from Spain to assess the cost-effectiveness ratio of TAVI vs SAVR in patients with sSAS and low surgical mortality risk. Methods: A 2-stage model was used to estimate direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life data regarding TAVI with the SAPIEN 3 valve and SAVR. Early adverse events associated with TAVI from the PARTNER 3 were fed into a Markov model that captured longer-term outcomes after TAVI or SAVR. Results: TAVI with SAPIEN 3 improved quality-adjusted life years per patient (+ 1.00) with an increase in costs vs SAVR (€6971 per patient). This meant an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio/quality-adjusted life year of €6952 per patient. The results were robust with TAVI with the SAPIEN 3 valve remaining cost-effective across several sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: TAVI with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost effective compared to SAVR in patients with sSAS and low surgical mortality risk. These findings can inform policymakers to facilitate policy development in Spain on intervention selection in this patient population., Introducción y objetivos: El implante percutáneo de válvula aórtica (TAVI) se introdujo en 2007 como una alternativa a la cirugía a corazón abierto para tratar a pacientes con estenosis aórtica grave sintomática, y desde entonces han aumentado las indicaciones autorizadas. Recientemente, el Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve Study (PARTNER) 3 ha demostrado beneficios clínicos con el TAVI con la válvula SAPIEN 3 frente al reemplazo quirúrgico de válvula aórtica (RVAo) en pacientes seleccionados con bajo riesgo de mortalidad quirúrgica. Utilizando los datos del PARTNER 3 junto con datos económicos de España, se evaluó la relación coste-efectividad del TAVI en comparación con el RVAo en pacientes con estenosis aórtica grave sintomática con bajo riesgo de mortalidad quirúrgica. Métodos: Se utilizó un modelo en dos etapas para estimar los costes directos sanitarios y los datos de calidad de vida relacionadas con la salud para TAVI con la válvula SAPIEN 3 y RVAo. Los eventos adversos tempranos relacionados con TAVI del PARTNER 3 se incluyeron en un modelo de Markov, que capturó los resultados a más largo plazo tras TAVI o RVAo. Resultados: El TAVI con SAPIEN 3 mejoró los años de vida ajustados por calidad por paciente (+1,00), con un aumento en el coste frente al RVAo de 6.971 € por paciente. Esto representó una ratio coste-efectividad incremental por año de vida ganado ajustado por calidad de 6.952 € por paciente. Los resultados fueron robustos en los diversos análisis de sensibilidad realizados, en los que el TAVI con SAPIEN 3 se mantiene como una opción coste-efectiva. Conclusiones: El TAVI con SAPIEN 3 es coste-efectivo en comparación con el RVAo en pacientes con estenosis aórtica grave sintomática con bajo riesgo de mortalidad quirúrgica. Estos resultados pueden informar a los decisores políticos en España para facilitar el desarrollo de políticas sobre la selección de opciones terapéuticas en esta población de pacientes.

Laura Heathcote,1 Tushar Srivastava,1 Archita Sarmah,2 Ben Kearns,1 Anthea Sutton,1 Pascal Candolfi2 1School for Health and Related Research, the University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK; 2Edwards Lifesciences SA, Nyon, SwitzerlandCorrespondence: Laura Heathcote, School for Health and Related Research (Scharr), the University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, S1 4DA., UK, Email l.heathcote@sheffield.ac.ukObjective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a disruptive technology recommended for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS). Despite being available for over 15 years in Europe, with an extensive volume of clinical and economic evaluations across all surgical risk groups, there is little evidence on the identification of the key drivers of TAVI’s cost-effectiveness. This study sought to identify these factors and quantify their role.Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published economic evaluations of TAVI. This was supplemented by health technology assessment reports. The primary outcome was the likelihood of TAVI being found cost-effective. Secondary outcomes of TAVI being dominant, and the incremental health benefits of TAVI were also explored.Results: Forty-two studies, reporting 65 unique analyses, were identified. TAVI was found to be cost-effective and dominant in 74% and 20% of analyses, respectively. The latest generation balloon-expandable TAVI device (SAPIEN 3) was more likely to be found cost-effective, as was TAVI use in low-risk populations and when performed via transfemoral access route. There was heterogeneity in the approach taken to economic modelling, which may also influence estimates of cost-effectiveness. Analyses that found TAVI to be dominant always compared it to surgery and usually considered the latest generation balloon-expandable TAVI device. Largest health benefits were observed for the inoperable risk group.Conclusion: For patients with sSAS, TAVI is

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) from two studies Methods: Patients who underwent RDAVR (INTUITY valve) in the prospective, 5-year, single-arm multicenter TRITON study, or conventional AVR (Perimount Magna Ease valve) in the prospective Perimount Magna Ease postmarket study, were propensity score matched and compared for procedural, hemodynamic, safety, and clinical outcomes. Results: Matched RDAVR (n = 106) and conventional AVR (n = 106) patients had similar baseline characteristics (mean +/- SD age, 72.8 +/- 7.6 vs 72.5 +/- 7.4 years; male 59.4% vs 61.3%) and procedures (concomitant procedures: 41.5% vs 50.9%). Mean +/- SD aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in RDAVR than AVR patients (51.8 +/- 20.9 vs 73.9 +/- 33.2 minutes; P < 0.001), as was mean cardiopulmonary bypass time (82.8 +/- 34.2 vs 102.4 +/- 41.7minutes; P < 0.001). At 1 year, RDAVR patients showed significantly lower mean +/- SD and peak aortic valve gradients (9.0 +/- 3.4 and 17.0 +/- 6.2 mm Hg, respectively) than conventional AVR patients (13.4 +/- 5.5 and 24.2 +/- 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P < 0.001). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was significantly less common with RDAVR than with AVR [overall: 16/66 (24.2%) vs 46/76 (60.5%); P = 0.007; severe: 2/66 (3.0%) vs 13/76 (17.1%)]. There were no significant differences between the RDAVR and AVR groups regarding 30-day safety endpoints. Survival rates in the RDAVR and conventional AVR groups were, respectively, 99.1% and 100.0% at 30 days, 97.1% and 95.1% at 1 year, and 93.3% and 94.1% at 3 years (P = nonsignificant). Conclusions: In this retrospective study with matched populations, the RDAVR with the INTUITY valve system provided superior procedural and hemodynamic outcomes than a standard bioprosthesis without compromising safety.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after rapid-deployment aortic valve replacement (RDAVR) and conventional aortic valve replacement (AVR) from two studies. METHODS Patients who underwent RDAVR (INTUITY valve) in the prospective, 5-year, single-arm multicenter TRITON study, or conventional AVR (Perimount Magna Ease valve) in the prospective Perimount Magna Ease postmarket study, were propensity score matched and compared for procedural, hemodynamic, safety, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS Matched RDAVR (n = 106) and conventional AVR (n = 106) patients had similar baseline characteristics (mean ± SD age, 72.8 ± 7.6 vs 72.5 ± 7.4 years; male 59.4% vs 61.3%) and procedures (concomitant procedures: 41.5% vs 50.9%). Mean ± SD aortic cross-clamp time was significantly shorter in RDAVR than AVR patients (51.8 ± 20.9 vs 73.9 ± 33.2 minutes; P < 0.001), as was mean cardiopulmonary bypass time (82.8 ± 34.2 vs 102.4 ± 41.7 minutes; P < 0.001). At 1 year, RDAVR patients showed significantly lower mean ± SD and peak aortic valve gradients (9.0 ± 3.4 and 17.0 ± 6.2 mm Hg, respectively) than conventional AVR patients (13.4 ± 5.5 and 24.2 ± 10.8 mm Hg, respectively; all P < 0.001). Patient-prosthesis mismatch was significantly less common with RDAVR than with AVR [overall: 16/66 (24.2%) vs 46/76 (60.5%); P = 0.007; severe: 2/66 (3.0%) vs 13/76 (17.1%)]. There were no significant differences between the RDAVR and AVR groups regarding 30-day safety endpoints. Survival rates in the RDAVR and conventional AVR groups were, respectively, 99.1% and 100.0% at 30 days, 97.1% and 95.1% at 1 year, and 93.3% and 94.1% at 3 years (P = nonsignificant). CONCLUSIONS In this retrospective study with matched populations, the RDAVR with the INTUITY valve system provided superior procedural and hemodynamic outcomes than a standard bioprosthesis without compromising safety.