Key result
A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of resource-intensive versus minimally invasive TAVR in high-risk patients, but no results are reported in the abstract.
Why the study?
As TAVR expands to lower-risk patients, it remains unclear whether TAVR meets an acceptable cost-effectiveness threshold.
Is a resource-intensive approach cost-effective compared to a minimally invasive strategy for TAVR in high-risk surgical patients?
Is a resource-intensive approach cost-effective compared to a minimally invasive strategy for TAVR in high-risk surgical patients?
This study models the cost-effectiveness of a resource-intensive versus minimally invasive strategy for TAVR in high-risk patients.
May guide TAVR resource allocation in high-risk patients; leaves open need for empirical validation of modeled cost-effectiveness.
Aortic stenosis has a high mortality rate in patients who do not receive aortic valve replacement. Previously, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was an intervention reserved for individuals deemed high-risk for surgery. Since that time, TAVR has increasingly been offered to lower risk patients, yet it is unclear whether TAVR will meet an acceptable cost-effectiveness threshold in this group. In this cost-effectiveness study, we employed a decision tree model with Monte Carlo probability sensitivity analysis to determine the incremental cost (in US$) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY) of performing the TAVR procedure using the resource-intensive approach versus the minimally invasive strategy in high-risk surgical patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mayhew et al. (2022) studied Aortic stenosis. Resource-intensive approach for TAVR vs. Minimally invasive strategy was evaluated on Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and life year (LY). A decision tree model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of resource-intensive versus minimally invasive TAVR in high-risk patients, but no results are reported in the abstract.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: