HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS REPORTING COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF TRANSCATHETER AORTIC VALVE IMPLANTATION

The transcatheter aortic valve implantation: an assessment of the generalizability of the economic evidences following a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Scientific literature debates on the economic affordability of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in order to give a useful support to decision makers aiming at establishing a reimbursement scheme for TAVI. For this reason, it is important to assess the quality and the generalizability of the existing economic evidences.

METHODS

The first step was to run a literature search according to a predefined population, intervention, comparator, and outcome on the cost and effectiveness of the TAVI procedure in comparison to medical therapy and traditional surgery. Second, a manual search was carried out on the Web sites of the main HTA agencies. Third, the checklist developed by Augustovski et al. was applied in order to assess the quality and the generalizability of the articles resulting from the selection process.

RESULTS

Overall, 106 articles were obtained. Of these, sixty-five articles were excluded since the title was not consistent with the objective. Further selection took place after abstract and full-text reading. In the end, thirty-one documents were included for the review. According to the checklist, none of the articles was considered generalizable and only one was considered transferable which compares the TAVI procedure with Medical Management in inoperable patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the overall quality of the selected studies was considered good, there is still a lack of evidence on whether evidences generated in different contexts can be considered generalizable. Further research on resource consumption and preferences is needed in order to provide decision makers with more robust evidences.

Cost analysis of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in octogenarians: analysis from a single Japanese center

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has revolutionized the prognosis of intermediate- or high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, particularly among older adults. However, in possible candidates for surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), the implantation of expensive prostheses may be questionable in an era when healthcare costs are becoming a major concern. In this retrospective analysis of a single Japanese center, we focused on patients aged over 80 years; the objectives of this study were: (1) to compare TAVR and SAVR in terms of total hospitalization costs and (2) to describe the itemized cost of TAVR and SAVR to identify patients aged over 80 years in whom TAVR or SAVR would be cost-effective. A total of 146 patients aged over 80 years who underwent TAVR or SAVR for severe aortic stenosis were included. These patients were divided into a high-risk group (Society of Thoracic Surgeons [STS] mortality score > 8%; 36: TAVR and 12: SAVR) with 48 patients and a non-high-risk group (STS mortality score < 8%; 45: TAVR and 53 SAVR) with 98 patients. No 30-day mortality was observed in either group. In both groups, postoperative intensive care unit stay and hospital stay were longer with SAVR than with TAVR. In the non-high-risk group, the total cost was comparable for TAVR and SAVR; however, in the high-risk group, the total cost was significantly higher with SAVR than that with TAVR. A breakdown analysis of the total cost in the high-risk group showed both pre- and postoperative costs to be significantly higher with SAVR than with TAVR; however, operative costs were higher with TAVR. Up to 3 years, the overall survival in both groups did not significantly differ between TAVR and SAVR. Our findings suggest that from the perspective of total medical costs, TAVR is more suitable than SAVR for high-risk older adults.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients over 85 years old

OBJECTIVES

Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of in very old patients with severe aortic stenosis is associated with a high risk of morbidity and mortality. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become the preferred alternative. Therefore, we sought to evaluate outcomes in very old patients who underwent SAVR versus TAVI.

METHODS

A total of 169 consecutive patients aged ≥85 years underwent TAVI (n = 68) or SAVR (n = 101). A propensity score adjustment was used to compare outcomes including cost analysis.

RESULTS

The propensity score generated 40 pairs of patients with similar baseline characteristics. The TAVI group experienced atrioventricular block (37.5% vs 5%, P < 0.01) more frequently, a longer stay in the intensive care unit (median 5 days, range 1-35 vs median 2 days, range 1-6, P < 0.01) but a lower rate of new-onset atrial fibrillation (15% vs 47.5%, P < 0.01). The 30-day mortality rate was similar in the unmatched and matched cohorts (8.8% vs 5.0%, P = 0.32; 10% vs 7.5%, P = 0.69). One, 3- and 5-year overall survival rates (80% vs 90%, 56% vs 79%, 37% vs 71%, P < 0.01) and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (72% vs 90%, 46% vs 76%, 17% vs 68%, P < 0.01) were lower in the TAVI group. An overall cost analysis indicated that TAVI was more expensive (€2084 vs €19 891).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients 85 years and older, SAVR seems to offer good short- and mid-term clinical outcomes compared to TAVI. Advanced age alone would not be an indication for TAVI in old-old patients.

Low pacemaker incidence with continuous-sutured valves: a retrospective analysis

Background Permanent pacemaker implantation after surgical aortic valve replacement depends on patient selection and risk factors for conduction disorders. We aimed to identify risk criteria and obtain a selected group comparable to patients assigned to transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Methods Isolated sutured aortic valve replacements in 994 patients treated from 2007 to 2015 were reviewed. Demographics, hospital stay, preexisting conduction disorders, surgical technique, and etiology in patients with and without permanent pacemaker implantation were compared. Reported outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve implantation were compared with those of a subgroup including only degenerative valve disease and first redo. Results The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation was 2.9%. Longer hospital stay ( p = 0.01), preexisting rhythm disorders ( p < 0.001), complex prosthetic endocarditis ( p = 0.01), and complex redo ( p < 0.001) were associated with permanent pacemaker implantation. Although prostheses were sutured with continuous monofilament in the majority of cases (86%), interrupted pledgetted sutures were used more often in the pacemaker group ( p = 0.002). In the subgroup analysis, the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation was 2%; preexisting rhythm disorders and the suture technique were still major risk factors. Conclusion Permanent pacemaker implantation depends on etiology, preexisting rhythm disorders, and suture technique, and the 2% incidence compares favorably with the reported 5- to 10-fold higher incidence after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Cost analysis should take this into account. Often dismissed as minor complication, permanent pacemaker implantation increases the risks of endocarditis, impaired myocardial recovery, and higher mortality if associated with prosthesis regurgitation.

Comparison of contemporaneous responses for EQ-5D-3L and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure; a case for disease specific multiattribute utility instrument in cardiovascular conditions

BACKGROUND

The EQ-5D-3L, a generic multi-attribute utility instrument (MAUI), is widely employed to assist in economic evaluations in health care. The EQ-5D-3L lacks sensitivity when used in conditions such as cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although there are number of CVD specific quality of life instruments, currently, there are no CVD specific MAUIs. The aim of this study is to investigate the discriminative ability and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHF), a CVD specific quality of life instrument in a group of heart failure patients.

METHODS

The psychometric performance of the EQ-5D-3L and the MLHF was assessed using data from a randomised trial for a heart failure management intervention. The two instruments were compared for discrimination, responsiveness and agreement. The severity groups were defined using New York Heart Association functional classes.

RESULTS

The effect sizes for severe classes were generally similar showing good discrimination. The MLHF recorded better responsiveness between the time points than the EQ-5D-3L which was indicated by higher effect sizes and standardised response means. The change in MLHF summary scores between the time points was significant (p<0.005; paired t-test). The overall agreement between the two measures was low.

CONCLUSION

The low correlation indicates that the two classification systems cover different aspects of health space. Comparison of CVD specific instruments with other generic MAUIs such as EQ-5D-3L and AQOL-8D is recommended for further research.