Key result
TAVI proves cost-effective in ~74% of economic analyses for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis.
Why the study?
Despite extensive clinical and economic evaluations of TAVI across surgical risk groups over 15 years, little evidence identified the key drivers of its cost-effectiveness.
Is TAVI cost-effective for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and what factors influence its cost-effectiveness?
Systematic Review
Is TAVI cost-effective for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, and what factors influence its cost-effectiveness?
TAVI is generally a cost-effective treatment for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis, with cost-effectiveness driven by device generation, patient risk group, and access route.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports TAVI adoption for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis; extends economic evidence synthesis across risk groups and devices.
Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a disruptive technology recommended for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS). Despite being available for over 15 years in Europe, with an extensive volume of clinical and economic evaluations across all surgical risk groups, there is little evidence on the identification of the key drivers of TAVI's cost-effectiveness. This study sought to identify these factors and quantify their role. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify published economic evaluations of TAVI. This was supplemented by health technology assessment reports. The primary outcome was the likelihood of TAVI being found cost-effective. Secondary outcomes of TAVI being dominant, and the incremental health benefits of TAVI were also explored. Results: Forty-two studies, reporting 65 unique analyses, were identified. TAVI was found to be cost-effective and dominant in 74% and 20% of analyses, respectively. The latest generation balloon-expandable TAVI device (SAPIEN 3) was more likely to be found cost-effective, as was TAVI use in low-risk populations and when performed via transfemoral access route. There was heterogeneity in the approach taken to economic modelling, which may also influence estimates of cost-effectiveness. Analyses that found TAVI to be dominant always compared it to surgery and usually considered the latest generation balloon-expandable TAVI device. Largest health benefits were observed for the inoperable risk group. Conclusion: For patients with sSAS, TAVI is typically a cost-effective treatment option. There are important differences by device generation, risk group and access route. It is crucial to consider these differences when appraising the health economic evidence-base for TAVI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heathcote et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review in Symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgery was evaluated on Likelihood of TAVI being found cost-effective. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was found to be cost-effective in 74% and dominant in 20% of economic analyses for symptomatic severe aortic stenosis.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: