Why the study?
TAVR is supplanting SAVR and medical therapy for aortic valve disease, but the economic implications of these trends are unknown.
What are the relative costs, inpatient days, and number of admissions associated with treating aortic valve disease with SAVR, TAVR, or medical therapy?
What are the relative costs, inpatient days, and number of admissions associated with treating aortic valve disease with SAVR, TAVR, or medical therapy?
While TAVR had higher aggregate 6-month costs than SAVR and medical therapy overall, TAVR costs decreased over time to become similar to SAVR by 2016.
TAVR costs approached SAVR by 2016 in this cohort; leaves open whether parity persists amid newer devices and broader indications.
Background: The number of patients treated for aortic valve disease in the United States is increasing rapidly. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is supplanting surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and medical therapy (MT). The economic implications of these trends are unknown. Therefore, we undertook to determine the costs, inpatient days, and number of admissions associated with treating aortic valve disease with SAVR, TAVR, or MT. Methods: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we identified patients with aortic valve disease admitted 2012 to 2016 for SAVR, TAVR, and disease symptoms (congestive heart failure, unstable angina, non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction, syncope). Patients not undergoing SAVR or TAVR were classified as receiving MT. Beginning with the index admission, we estimated inpatient costs, days, and admissions over 6 months. Results: Among 190 563 patients with aortic valve disease, the average aggregate 6-month inpatient costs were $59 743 for SAVR, $64 395 for TAVR, and $23 460 for MT. Mean index admission was longer for SAVR (10.0 days) than for TAVR (7.0 day) or MT (5.3 days), but the average number of unplanned readmission inpatient days was 2.0 for SAVR, 3.0 for TAVR, and 4.3 for MT; the average number of total admissions was 1.3 for SAVR, 1.5 for TAVR, and 1.7 for MT ( P <0.01 for all). TAVR index admission costs decreased over time to become similar to SAVR costs by 2016. Conclusions: Aggregate costs were higher for TAVR than SAVR and were significantly more expensive than MT alone. However, TAVR costs decreased over time while SAVR and MT costs remained unchanged.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goldsweig et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: