Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Matthew R. Reynolds; Yang Lei; Kaijun Wang; Khaja Chinnakondepalli; Katherine A. Vilain; Elizabeth A. Magnuson; Benjamin Z. Galper; Christopher U. Meduri; Suzanne V. Arnold; Suzanne J. Baron; Michael J. Reardon; David H. Adams; Jeffrey J. Popma; David J. Cohen

doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.046

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Matthew R. Reynolds, Yang Lei, Kaijun Wang, Khaja Chinnakondepalli, Katherine A. Vilain, Elizabeth A. Magnuson, Benjamin Z. Galper, Christopher U. Meduri, Suzanne V. Arnold, Suzanne J. Baron, Michael J. Reardon, David H. Adams, Jeffrey J. Popma, David J. Cohen

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

105 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system. Objectives The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. Methods We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S. perspective. Results Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained. Conclusions In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S. standards. With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	29-38
Number of pages	10
Journal	Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume	67
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.046
State	Published - Jan 5 2016

Keywords

Key Words aortic stenosis
cost-benefit analysis
heart valve prosthesis
quality-adjusted life-years
transcatheter valve therapy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.046

Cite this

Reynolds, M. R., Lei, Y., Wang, K., Chinnakondepalli, K., Vilain, K. A., Magnuson, E. A., Galper, B. Z., Meduri, C. U., Arnold, S. V., Baron, S. J., Reardon, M. J., Adams, D. H., Popma, J. J., & Cohen, D. J. (2016). Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 67(1), 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.046

Reynolds, MR, Lei, Y, Wang, K, Chinnakondepalli, K, Vilain, KA, Magnuson, EA, Galper, BZ, Meduri, CU, Arnold, SV, Baron, SJ, Reardon, MJ, Adams, DH, Popma, JJ & Cohen, DJ 2016, 'Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement', Journal of the American College of Cardiology, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.046

@article{5444d8e53e8b409f90bdbe60aca87287,

title = "Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement",

abstract = "Background Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system. Objectives The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. Methods We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S. perspective. Results Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained. Conclusions In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S. standards. With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S.",

keywords = "Key Words aortic stenosis, cost-benefit analysis, heart valve prosthesis, quality-adjusted life-years, transcatheter valve therapy",

author = "Reynolds, {Matthew R.} and Yang Lei and Kaijun Wang and Khaja Chinnakondepalli and Vilain, {Katherine A.} and Magnuson, {Elizabeth A.} and Galper, {Benjamin Z.} and Meduri, {Christopher U.} and Arnold, {Suzanne V.} and Baron, {Suzanne J.} and Reardon, {Michael J.} and Adams, {David H.} and Popma, {Jeffrey J.} and Cohen, {David J.}",

note = "Funding Information: This study was supported by Medtronic, Inc. Dr. Reynolds has received research support from Medtronic; and consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Magnuson has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, and Medtronic. Dr. Meduri has received grants for educational programs from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Baron has received speaking honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Reardon has received honoraria from Medtronic for participation on a surgical advisory board. Dr. Adams has received royalties through his institution from Medtronic for a patent related to a triscupid-valve annuloplasty ring and from Edwards Lifesciences for a patent related to degenerative valvular disease–specific annuloplasty rings; and is the national co–principal investigator of the CoreValve U.S. High Risk pivotal trial. Dr. Popma has received honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and St. Jude Medical for participation on medical advisory boards; institutional grants from Medtronic, Direct Flow Medical, and Cook; consulting fees from Direct Flow Medical; and he has equity in Direct Flow Medical. Dr. Cohen has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Biomet, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, and Medtronic; and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Neil Moat, MBBS, served as Guest Editor for this paper. Funding Information: This study was supported by Medtronic, Inc. Dr. Reynolds has received research support from Medtronic; and consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Magnuson has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, and Medtronic. Dr. Meduri has received grants for educational programs from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Baron has received speaking honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Reardon has received honoraria from Medtronic for participation on a surgical advisory board. Dr. Adams has received royalties through his institution from Medtronic for a patent related to a triscupid-valve annuloplasty ring and from Edwards Lifesciences for a patent related to degenerative valvular disease-specific annuloplasty rings; and is the national co- principal investigator of the CoreValve U.S. High Risk pivotal trial. Dr. Popma has received honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and St. Jude Medical for participation on medical advisory boards; institutional grants from Medtronic, Direct Flow Medical, and Cook; consulting fees from Direct Flow Medical; and he has equity in Direct Flow Medical. Dr. Cohen has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Biomet, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, and Medtronic; and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Neil Moat, MBBS, served as Guest Editor for this paper. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation.",

year = "2016",

month = jan,

day = "5",

doi = "10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.046",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "67",

pages = "29--38",

journal = "Journal of the American College of Cardiology.",

issn = "0735-1097",

publisher = "Elsevier",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

AU - Reynolds, Matthew R.

AU - Lei, Yang

AU - Wang, Kaijun

AU - Chinnakondepalli, Khaja

AU - Vilain, Katherine A.

AU - Magnuson, Elizabeth A.

AU - Galper, Benjamin Z.

AU - Meduri, Christopher U.

AU - Arnold, Suzanne V.

AU - Baron, Suzanne J.

AU - Reardon, Michael J.

AU - Adams, David H.

AU - Popma, Jeffrey J.

AU - Cohen, David J.

N1 - Funding Information: This study was supported by Medtronic, Inc. Dr. Reynolds has received research support from Medtronic; and consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Magnuson has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, and Medtronic. Dr. Meduri has received grants for educational programs from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Baron has received speaking honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Reardon has received honoraria from Medtronic for participation on a surgical advisory board. Dr. Adams has received royalties through his institution from Medtronic for a patent related to a triscupid-valve annuloplasty ring and from Edwards Lifesciences for a patent related to degenerative valvular disease–specific annuloplasty rings; and is the national co–principal investigator of the CoreValve U.S. High Risk pivotal trial. Dr. Popma has received honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and St. Jude Medical for participation on medical advisory boards; institutional grants from Medtronic, Direct Flow Medical, and Cook; consulting fees from Direct Flow Medical; and he has equity in Direct Flow Medical. Dr. Cohen has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Biomet, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, and Medtronic; and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Neil Moat, MBBS, served as Guest Editor for this paper. Funding Information: This study was supported by Medtronic, Inc. Dr. Reynolds has received research support from Medtronic; and consulting fees from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Magnuson has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, and Medtronic. Dr. Meduri has received grants for educational programs from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Baron has received speaking honoraria from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr. Reardon has received honoraria from Medtronic for participation on a surgical advisory board. Dr. Adams has received royalties through his institution from Medtronic for a patent related to a triscupid-valve annuloplasty ring and from Edwards Lifesciences for a patent related to degenerative valvular disease-specific annuloplasty rings; and is the national co- principal investigator of the CoreValve U.S. High Risk pivotal trial. Dr. Popma has received honoraria from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, and St. Jude Medical for participation on medical advisory boards; institutional grants from Medtronic, Direct Flow Medical, and Cook; consulting fees from Direct Flow Medical; and he has equity in Direct Flow Medical. Dr. Cohen has received grant support from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Biomet, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Eli Lilly, Jannsen Pharmaceuticals, and Medtronic; and consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Medtronic. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Neil Moat, MBBS, served as Guest Editor for this paper. Publisher Copyright: © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation.

PY - 2016/1/5

Y1 - 2016/1/5

N2 - Background Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system. Objectives The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. Methods We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S. perspective. Results Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained. Conclusions In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S. standards. With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S.

AB - Background Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system. Objectives The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk. Methods We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S. perspective. Results Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained. Conclusions In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S. standards. With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S.

KW - Key Words aortic stenosis

KW - cost-benefit analysis

KW - heart valve prosthesis

KW - quality-adjusted life-years

KW - transcatheter valve therapy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84952923438&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84952923438&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.046

DO - 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.046

M3 - Article

C2 - 26764063

AN - SCOPUS:84952923438

VL - 67

SP - 29

EP - 38

JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

SN - 0735-1097

IS - 1

ER -

Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement with a Self-Expanding Prosthesis Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this