Cost-Utility Analysis of TAVI Versus Surgery in Low-Risk Patients with Severe Aortic Stenosis in the UK

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: European guidelines recommend transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI; class IA) for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS) in patients aged ≥ 75 years, if a transfemoral approach is possible. Recent cost-utility analyses based on the PARTNER 3 trial have suggested that TAVI with the SAPIEN 3 device is cost effective versus surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients at low risk of surgical mortality in several European countries. This cost-utility analysis compares TAVI with SAPIEN 3 versus SAVR in patients with sSAS at low risk of surgical mortality from the UK healthcare system perspective, using 5-year PARTNER 3 trial data. METHODS: A two-stage, Markov-based, cost-utility analysis was performed using published and validated methodology to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life for TAVI with SAPIEN 3 versus SAVR in patients with sSAS at low surgical risk from the perspective of the UK healthcare system. The model used a lifetime horizon with a 3.5% yearly discounting factor. Uncertainty was addressed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with SAPIEN 3 generated an incremental health benefit of 0.47 (90% credible interval 0.35-0.60) quality-adjusted life-years per patient compared with SAVR, at an increased cost of £7999 (£852-£15,035 90% credible interval) per patient over a lifetime horizon (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: £16,979 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation has a 63-90% probability of cost effectiveness based on a £20,000-£30,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation remained cost effective across most deterministic sensitivity analyses, confirming the relative robustness of the results. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation with SAPIEN 3 has a 63-90% probability of being cost effective compared with SAVR for low-surgical-risk patients with sSAS. These findings may inform policy decision making in the management of this patient group.