Cost-effectiveness analysis of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis at low risk of surgical mortality in Sweden.

Background: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has shown similar or improved clinical outcomes compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis at low risk for surgical mortality. This cost-utility analysis compared TAVI with SAPIEN 3 versus SAVR in symptomatic severe aortic stenosis patients at low risk of surgical mortality from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system.

Methods: A published, two-stage, Markov-based cost-utility model that captured clinical outcomes from the (SWEDEHEART) registry (2018-2020) was adapted from the perspective of the Swedish healthcare system using local general population mortality, utility and costs data.

A Systematic Review and Statistical Analysis of Factors Influencing the Cost-Effectiveness of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation for Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis.

Objective: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a disruptive technology recommended for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (sSAS). Despite being available for over 15 years in Europe, with an extensive volume of clinical and economic evaluations across all surgical risk groups, there is little evidence on the identification of the key drivers of TAVI's cost-effectiveness. This study sought to identify these factors and quantify their role.

Cost-Effectiveness of SAPIEN 3 Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in German Severe Aortic Stenosis Patients at Low Surgical Mortality Risk.

Introduction: In the randomized PARTNER 3 trial, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device significantly reduced a composite of all-cause death, stroke, and rehospitalization, compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and low risk of surgical mortality. Furthermore, TAVI has been shown to be cost-effective in low-risk patients, compared with SAVR, in a number of countries. This study aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of TAVI with SAPIEN 3 versus SAVR in Germany.

Cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in low surgical risk aortic stenosis patients.

Background: The PARTNER 3 trial demonstrated clinical benefits of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the SAPIEN 3 device, over surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (sSAS) at low risk of surgical mortality. Using PARTNER 3 outcomes and Italy-specific costs data, this cost-utility analysis from the perspective of the Italian National Health System aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of SAPIEN 3 TAVI versus SAVR in low risk sSAS patients in Italy.

Methods: A two-stage cost-utility model was developed to estimate changes in both direct healthcare costs and health-related quality of life using TAVI with SAPIEN 3 compared with SAVR.