What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVI compared to minimally invasive SAVR for low-risk aortic stenosis patients in Japan.

April 28, 2026Open Access

Cost-Effectiveness of TAVI VS Minimally Invasive SAVR for Low-Risk Aortic Stenosis in Japan

Key Result

TAVI showed broadly comparable cost-effectiveness to MICS-AVR in low-risk severe aortic stenosis, depending strongly on institutional performance and surgical expertise.

Key Points

This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVI compared to minimally invasive SAVR for low-risk aortic stenosis patients in Japan.
Compared cost-effectiveness of TAVI and minimally invasive SAVR in low-risk patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis.
Analyzed institutional performance and surgical expertise impacts on economic outcomes.
TAVI and MICS-AVR demonstrated comparable cost-effectiveness across the evaluated population.
The economic value of TAVI was significantly influenced by the surgical team's expertise.

Structured PICO

Does TAVI improve cost-effectiveness compared to MICS-AVR in low-risk patients with isolated severe AS?

Population

Low-risk patients with isolated severe aortic stenosis (AS)

Intervention

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI)

Comparator

Minimally Invasive Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (MICS-AVR)

Outcome

Cost-effectiveness

TAVI and MICS-AVR offer comparable cost-effectiveness for low-risk severe AS in Japan, though institutional expertise heavily influences the economic value.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%

Abstract

TAVI and MICS-AVR showed broadly comparable cost-effectiveness in low-risk patients with isolated severe AS. The relative economic value of TAVI depended strongly on institutional performance and surgical expertise.