Key result
TAVI dominates SAVR over 10 years with lower costs and higher QALYs in high-risk patients.
Why the study?
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improve cost-effectiveness compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high operative risk?
Population
Patients with severe aortic stenosis at high operative risk
Comparison
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)
Design
Other
Follow-up
10 year horizon (modelled)
Authors
Loading...
May support TAVI cost-effectiveness in high-risk aortic stenosis; extends registry data but leaves randomized confirmation open.
Does transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) improve cost-effectiveness compared to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis at high operative risk?
TAVI is likely a cost-effective alternative to SAVR in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis, driven by lower post-surgical and hospital stay costs.
Fairbairn et al. (2013) studied Severe aortic stenosis at high operative risk. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) vs. Surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) was evaluated on Costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) modeled over a 10 year horizon. TAVI dominated SAVR over a 10-year horizon, yielding lower total costs (£52,593 vs £53,943) and higher quality-adjusted life years (2.81 vs 2.75) in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: