Budget impact analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low, intermediate, and high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis in Saudi Arabia

AIMS

A budget impact analysis (BIA) comparing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with SAPIEN 3 and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis among patients of low, intermediate, and high surgical risk from the perspective of the public and private sectors in Saudi Arabia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov model was developed with six states to calculate the budget impact from time of either TAVR or SAVR intervention up to 5 years. We compared the budget effects of new permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI), new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), major/disabling stroke (MDS), and surgical site infections (SSI). One-way sensitivity analyses (OWSA) were performed on cost and probability inputs.

RESULTS

Analysis of the base case parameters suggests TAVR vs. SAVR is budget saving among intermediate- and high-risk patients at 5 years. TAVR vs. SAVR for low surgical risk reaches budget neutrality at 5 years. TAVR is associated with higher costs for PPI and budget savings for MDS, AF, and SSI. TAVR also results in savings for non-device costs due to fewer human resource uses and shorter procedure durations. Similarly, TAVR is associated with cost savings due to shorter hospital intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU stays. The OWSA consistently revealed that SAVR non-device theater costs were the leading cost driver across all surgical risk levels.

LIMITATIONS

This is the first budget impact analysis of its kind in Saudi Arabia and future research is needed on costing TAVR and SAVR procedures, the economic impact of SSI, and corroborating estimates for the public and private sectors.

CONCLUSIONS

Payers, providers, and policymakers increasingly turn to results of BIA to inform technologies affordability decisions. TAVR with SAPIEN 3 appears to generate savings vs. SAVR from a budget impact perspective across various surgical risk levels in Saudi Arabia.

Outcomes of transfemoral balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation: Comparison of two subsequent valve generations

BACKGROUND

The SAPIEN 3 (S3) addresses several limitations of the SAPIEN XT (SXT) for the performance of transfemoral (TF-) balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI).

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine whether their altered features translate into improved outcomes in a real-world TF-TAVI patient population.

METHODS

Data for 3,314 patients were extracted from the European registries SOURCE-XT and SOURCE-3. Patients were propensity-score (PS) matched (n = 1,169/group).

RESULTS

In the PS matched comparison, device success was higher in the S3 (99.2%) compared to the SXT group (98.2%; p = .04). S3 patients experienced a lower rate of procedural death (0.7 vs. 2.6%; p = .0004), moderate/severe paravalvular leakage (PVL; 1.4 vs. 5.5%; p < .0001), and procedure-related stroke (1.2 vs. 2.4%; p = .04) while higher rates of mean aortic valve gradients ≥20 mmHg, and new permanent pacemaker implantations were seen. At 30 days a lower rate of all-cause mortality was seen (2.1% vs. 4.3%; p = .003), which was preserved after 1 year (10.7% vs. 14.9%; p = .002). A Cox regression predicting 1-year mortality resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.684 in favor of S3 (p = .0026). The same was true of stroke (2.8% vs. 5.7%; p = .0007), and moderate/severe PVL (2.7 vs. 7.3%; p = .0002) at 1 year. The rate of new pacemaker implantations (13.6% vs. 9.5%; p = .001) and NYHA III/IV (12.8 vs. 8.6%; p = .004) was higher with the S3.

CONCLUSIONS

The improved features of the S3 appear to translate into improved survival and reduced rates of adverse complications, with the exception of a higher rate of new pacemaker implantations.

Health-related quality of life following transcatheter aortic valve implantation using transaortic, transfemoral approaches and surgical aortic valve replacement-a single-center study

Objective

To evaluate short- and long-term changes in quality of life (QoL) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and to assess differences in patient QoL when using the TAVI transaortic (TAVI TAo) approach compared with the transfemoral approach (TAVI TF) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR).

Methods

Ninety-seven patients were assessed. Thirty-two patients underwent TAVI TAo, 31 underwent TAVI TF and 34 patients underwent SAVR. QoL was assessed using the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire at baseline, after one month and one year.

Results

Mean patient age was 80 years (range, 61–92 years) and the mean logistic EuroSCORE was 12.45% (range, 1.39%–78.98%). Declared health state at baseline was significantly lower in TAVI TF (P < 0.001) and after one month there were no differences between the three groups (P = 0.99). After one year, SAVR patient results of the EQ-5D-3L index value were lower in comparison to both TAVI patient groups (P < 0.05). The analysis also showed significant differences between the results of EQ-5D-3L index value over the one month and one year follow-up (TAVI TAo, P < 0.001; TAVI TF, P < 0.05; SAVR, P < 0.05). In all groups, the values significantly increased after one-month and one-year of follow-up in comparison to baseline value. Significant differences were also demonstrated between Visual Analogue Scale values (VAS).

Conclusions

A significant improvement in QoL was observed in all three patient groups. Regardless of the TAVI approach, EQ-5D-3L and VAS values were significantly increased after one-month and one-year follow up; the SAVR patients however, reported lower health status when compared to the TAVI patients.