Key result
In patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was not cost-effective compared to SAVR, yielding an ICER of THB 906,937/QALY which exceeds the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of THB 160,000/QALY.
Why the study?
Although TAVI provides comparable survival and quality-of-life benefits to SAVR in intermediate-risk severe aortic stenosis, its cost-utility in Thailand remained to be evaluated.
Is TAVI cost-effective compared to SAVR in severe aortic stenosis patients with intermediate surgical risk in Thailand?
Is TAVI cost-effective compared to SAVR in severe aortic stenosis patients with intermediate surgical risk in Thailand?
In Thailand, TAVI is not currently cost-effective compared to SAVR for intermediate-risk severe aortic stenosis due to high valve costs.
TAVI should not replace SAVR in Thailand for intermediate-risk patients; leaves open cost-effectiveness only with substantially lower valve prices.
BACKGROUND: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) has been shown to provide comparable survival benefit and improvement in quality of life to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for treating patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate surgical risk. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-utility of TAVI compared with SAVR for severe aortic stenosis with intermediate surgical risk in Thailand. METHODS: A two-part constructed model was used to analyze lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) from societal and healthcare perspectives. The study cohort comprised severe AS patients at intermediate surgical risk with an average age of 80 years. The landmark trials were used to populate the model in terms of mortality and adverse event rates. All cost-related data and quality of life were based on Thai population. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually and presented as 2021 values. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: THB 726,342 [USD 22,171.63]) with similar QALYs gained to the societal perspective. The estimated ICER was THB 933,145/QALY (USD 933,145/QALY). TAVI was not cost-effective at the Thai willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of THB 160,000/QALY (USD 4,884/QALY). The results were sensitive to utility of either SAVR or TAVI treatment and cost of TAVI valve. CONCLUSION: In patients with severe AS at intermediate surgical risk, TAVI is not a cost-effective strategy compared with SAVR at the WTP of THB 160,000/QALY (USD 4,884/QALY) from the perspectives of society and healthcare system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Permsuwan et al. (2022) studied Severe aortic stenosis with intermediate surgical risk (n=134). Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) from a societal perspective (ICER THB 906,937/QALY). In patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, TAVI was not cost-effective compared to SAVR, yielding an ICER of THB 906,937/QALY which exceeds the Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of THB 160,000/QALY.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: