Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Compared With Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in High-Risk Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis: Results of the PARTNER (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) Trial (Cohort A)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. TAVR is an alternative to AVR for patients with severe aortic stenosis...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 60; no. 25; pp. 2683 - 2692
Main Authors REYNOLDS, Matthew R, MAGNUSON, Elizabeth A, MACK, Michael J, CRAIG MILLER, D, SATLER, Lowell E, BAVARIA, Joseph, SMITH, Craig R, LEON, Martin B, COHEN, David J, YANG LEI, KAIJUN WANG, VILAIN, Katherine, HAIYAN LI, WALCZAK, Joshua, PINTO, Duane S, THOURANI, Vinod H, SVENSSON, Lars G
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, NY Elsevier 25.12.2012
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. TAVR is an alternative to AVR for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. We performed a formal economic analysis based on cost, quality of life, and survival data collected in the PARTNER A (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial in which patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR. Cumulative 12-month costs (assessed from a U.S. societal perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were compared separately for the transfemoral (TF) and transapical (TA) cohorts. Although 12-month costs and QALYs were similar for TAVR and AVR in the overall population, there were important differences when results were stratified by access site. In the TF cohort, total 12-month costs were slightly lower with TAVR and QALYs were slightly higher such that TF-TAVR was economically dominant compared with AVR in the base case and economically attractive (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY) in 70.9% of bootstrap replicates. In the TA cohort, 12-month costs remained substantially higher with TAVR, whereas QALYs tended to be lower such that TA-TAVR was economically dominated by AVR in the base case and economically attractive in only 7.1% of replicates. In the PARTNER trial, TAVR was an economically attractive strategy compared with AVR for patients suitable for TF access. Future studies are necessary to determine whether improved experience and outcomes with TA-TAVR can improve its cost-effectiveness relative to AVR.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-News-2
ObjectType-Feature-3
content type line 23
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0735-1097
1558-3597
DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2012.09.018