Key result
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was cost-effective compared to surgical replacement in lower surgical risk patients, with a base case ICER of DKK 696,264 per QALY gained.
Why the study?
The cost-effectiveness of TAVI versus SAVR in patients at lower surgical risk remained to be estimated.
Is transcatheter aortic valve implantation cost-effective compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at lower surgical risk?
Population
Patients at lower surgical risk from the NOTION trial
Comparison
TAVI vs SAVR
Design
Decision-analytic model calibrated to trial data
Follow-up
60-month data projected to lifetime
Authors
Loading...
Supports TAVI consideration in lower-risk Danish patients; extends economic data but leaves generalizability open.
Is transcatheter aortic valve implantation cost-effective compared to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients at lower surgical risk?
Effect estimate: ICER DKK 696,264/QALY
TAVI is a cost-effective treatment strategy compared to SAVR in patients at lower surgical risk within the Danish healthcare system.
Geisler et al. (2019) studied Aortic valve disease at lower surgical risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained (ICER DKK 696,264/QALY). Transcatheter aortic valve implantation was cost-effective compared to surgical replacement in lower surgical risk patients, with a base case ICER of DKK 696,264 per QALY gained.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: