Key result
TriClip adds ~1.4 QALYs vs. OMT with cost-effectiveness over 15 years.
Why the study?
The clinical and economic effectiveness of transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the TriClip system compared with optimal medical therapy in high-surgical-risk patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation required evaluation in the Russian healthcare system.
Does transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the TriClip system improve clinical and economic effectiveness (LYGs, QALYs, cost-effectiveness) compared to optimal medical therapy in high surgical risk patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation?
Does transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the TriClip system improve clinical and economic effectiveness (LYGs, QALYs, cost-effectiveness) compared to optimal medical therapy in high surgical risk patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation?
In the Russian healthcare system, transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the TriClip system is projected to be cost-effective compared to optimal medical therapy for high-risk patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation, providing 1.41 additional QALYs over a 15-year horizon.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Model suggests QALY gains with TriClip in severe TR; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
Objective: To evaluate the clinical and economic effectiveness of the TriClip ® transcatheter edge-to-edge repair system compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation in the Russian healthcare system using mathematical modeling. Material and methods. A model was developed to evaluate the clinical and economic outcomes of alternative treatment strategies in patients at high surgical risk with grade 3–4 severe tricuspid regurgitation and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classes II–IV. The methods included cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, and budget impact analyses. The treatment strategies compared were transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the tricuspid valve using the TriClip ® system and OMT. The base-case time horizon for the clinical and economic analysis was 15 years. Scenario analyses with time horizons of 5, 10, and 20 years were also performed to assess the robustness of the results, along with analyses accounting for hospitalizations and crossover study results. Results. Compared with OMT, TriClip ® increased life years gained (LYGs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 1.36 and 1.41, respectively. Over the 15-year modeling horizon, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TriClip ® versus OMT was 3.3 million rubles per QALY. The budget impact analysis showed that introducing TriClip ® in addition to OMT would increase healthcare expenditures by 2.8 billion rubles over 5 years compared with OMT alone. Conclusion. Use of the TriClip ® tricuspid valve repair system is associated with higher direct medical costs as well as increased LYGs and QALYs compared with OMT. Despite the higher initial costs associated with the intervention, TriClip ® is cost-effective from the perspective of the Russian healthcare system, with its clinical benefits becoming more pronounced over longer time horizons.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Krekhtunova et al. (2026) studied Severe tricuspid regurgitation. Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with the TriClip system vs. Optimal medical therapy (OMT) was evaluated on Cost-effectiveness, life years gained (LYGs), and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (ICER 3.3 million rubles/QALY; +1.41 QALYs; +1.36 LYGs). Transcatheter edge-to-edge repair with TriClip increased QALYs by 1.41 and life years by 1.36 vs OMT, with an ICER of 3.3 million rubles/QALY over 15 years.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: