Why the study?
Are interventional treatments for structural heart disease cost-effective compared to traditional surgery or medical therapy?
Are interventional treatments for structural heart disease cost-effective compared to traditional surgery or medical therapy?
This review highlights that while percutaneous structural heart interventions have high upfront device costs, they can be cost-effective due to shorter hospital stays and are increasingly preferred by patients, necessitating a Heart Team approach for optimal decision-making.
During the last years, the numbers of interventions in structural heart disease such as transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), percutaneous treatment of mitral regurgitation using the MitraClip, closure of atrial septal defects (ASD) and others have constantly increased. While the 20th century was called the century of surgery, it appears that the present century might be the century of minimally invasive percutaneous therapy. The reduced invasiveness of these procedures and the success in elderly patients make these treatments increasingly attractive for younger and healthier patients. Now that these procedures are moving forward, some questions arise, namely, who is deciding on treatment modality, and can we afford it?
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeger et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: