The cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement in low surgical risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.

AIMS

The economic value of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in low surgical risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis is not known. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of balloon-expandable TAVR and self-expandable TAVR relative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in low-risk patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A fully probabilistic Markov cohort model was constructed to estimate differences in costs and effectiveness [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)] over the patient's life-time time from the third-party payer's perspective. Clinical outcomes modelled were alive/well (no complications), permanent stroke, ≥moderate paravalvular leak, new pacemaker, rehospitalization, and death. A network meta-analysis of the PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk trial was performed to compare balloon-expandable TAVR, self-expandable TAVR, and SAVR for the efficacy inputs. Incremental-cost effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. The total life-time costs in the balloon-expandable TAVR, self-expandable-TAVR, and SAVR arms were $37  330 ± 4724, $39 660 ± 4862, and $34 583 ± 6731, respectively, and total life-time QALYs gained were 9.15 ± 3.23, 9.13 ± 3.23, and 9.05 ± 3.20, respectively. The ICERs for balloon-expandable TAVR and self-expandable TAVR against SAVR were $27 196/QALY and $59 641/QALY, respectively. Balloon-expandable TAVR was less costly and more effective than self-expandable TAVR. There was substantial uncertainty, with 53% and 58% of model iterations showing balloon-expandable TAVR to be the preferred option at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $50 000/QALY and $100  000/QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Compared with SAVR, TAVR, particularly with balloon-expandable prostheses may be a cost-effective option for patients with severe aortic stenosis at low surgical risk.