Home > Journals > Minerva Medica > Past Issues > Minerva Medica 2021 June;112(3) > Minerva Medica 2021 June;112(3):372-83

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

REVIEW   

Minerva Medica 2021 June;112(3):372-83

DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4806.20.06640-9

Copyright © 2020 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Economic assessment of traditional surgical valve replacement versus use of transfemoral intervention in degenerative aortic stenosis

Christoph EDLINGER 1, 2, 3, Florian KRIZANIC 4, Christian BUTTER 1, 2, Marwin BANNEHR 1, 2, Michael NEUSS 1, 2, Dzeneta FEJZIC 3, Uta C. HOPPE 3, Michael LICHTENAUER 3

1 Department of Cardiology, Heart Center Brandenburg, Berlin, Germany; 2 Brandenburg Medical School (MHB) “Theodor Fontane,” Neuruppin, Germany; 3 Department of Cardiology, Clinic of Internal Medicine II, Paracelsus Medical University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria; 4 Department of Cardiology, Caritas Clinic Pankow Berlin, Berlin, Germany



INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to provide an economic assessment of interventional vs. surgical aortic valve replacement in the context of cost-effectiveness. Aortic stenosis represents the most common form of degenerative valvular heart diseases. As life expectancy increases, an even emerging prevalence is expected. Over decades, surgical replacement was considered as the method of choice. Up to one third of the patients were not eligible for surgery, as their estimated peri-operative risk was too high. In the early 2000s a catheter-based technique has been developed, being an alternative treatment option for patients, considered to be inoperable.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic analysis of current literature was performed from September 2018 to December 2018. All suitable data in the field was obtained from Pubmed and Google/Google scholar. The search terms “TAVI AND costs,” “TAVR and costs” and “aortic valve replacement AND costs” was entered in the search field, showing an overall amount of 317 publications. In a next step all obtained publications were screened by expert hand selection.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Recently the Food and Drug Association (FDA) approved transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the low-risk setting. Nevertheless, concerns on the higher price remain. We performed an analysis of current literature on aortic stenosis and economic aspects. Out of 322 screened publications, 7 studies were found eligible by expert hand selection. Based on the predefined payment readiness of the analyzed healthcare system, TAVR appeared to have a slightly better cost effectiveness. Initial results within the early era seemed to be inconsistent. Recent publications showed, TAVR might be of more cost effectiveness when using the newest generation devices and a profound clinical experience is guaranteed.
CONCLUSIONS: We assume, that TAVR will not only be the method of choice for the treatment of aortic stenosis in many patients. As the valves are getting cheaper, TAVR might even be superior to conventional heart surgery from an economic point of view.


KEY WORDS: Aortic valve stenosis; Transcatheter aortic valve replacement; Cost-benefit analysis

top of page