Search

Background: In patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve has been shown to reduce the composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 2-year follow-up compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for low-risk patients remains uncertain., Methods: Between 2016 and 2017, 1000 low-risk patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve or SAVR in the PARTNER 3 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves). Of these patients, 929 underwent valve replacement, were enrolled in the United States, and were included in the economic substudy. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource use. Other costs were determined by linkage with Medicare claims or by regression models when linkage was not feasible. Health utilities were estimated using the EuroQOL 5-item questionnaire. With the use of a Markov model informed by in-trial data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US health care system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained., Results: Although procedural costs were nearly $19 000 higher with TAVR, total index hospitalization costs were only $591 more with TAVR compared with SAVR. Follow-up costs were lower with TAVR such that TAVR led to 2-year cost savings of $2030/patient compared with SAVR (95% CI, -$6222 to $1816) and a gain of 0.05 quality-adjusted life-years (95% CI, -0.003 to 0.102). In our base-case analysis, TAVR was projected to be an economically dominant strategy with a 95% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for TAVR would be <$50 000/quality-adjusted life-year gained (consistent with high economic value from a US health care perspective). These findings were sensitive to differences in long-term survival, however, such that a modest long-term survival advantage with SAVR would render SAVR cost-effective (although not cost saving) compared with TAVR., Conclusions: For patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk similar to those enrolled in the PARTNER 3 trial, transfemoral TAVR with the SAPIEN 3 valve is cost saving compared with SAVR at 2 years and is projected to be economically attractive in the long run as long as there are no substantial differences in late death between the 2 strategies. Long-term follow-up will be critical to ultimately determine the preferred treatment strategy for low-risk patients from both a clinical and economic perspective., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Lu is an employee of Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Thourani has received grants from Edwards Lifesciences, consulting fees from Atricure, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Artivion, Shockwave, and Edwards Lifesciences, and holds equity in Dasi Simulations. Dr Kodali reports institutional research grants from Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, and Abbott; consulting fees from Abbott, Admedus, and Meril Lifesciences; and equity options from Biotrace Medical and Thubrikar Aortic Valve Inc. Dr Makkar reports grant support/research contract from Edwards Lifesciences, St. Jude Medical, and consultant fee/honoraria/speaker’s bureau from Abbott Vascular, Cordis Corporation, Medtronic. Dr Herrmann reports institutional research funding from Abbott Vascular, Ancora, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic; consultant fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic; and equity in Microinterventional Devices. Dr Williams has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Webb has received consulting fees from Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Mack served as coprimary investigator for the PARTNER Trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) for Edwards Lifesciences and COAPT trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation [The COAPT Trial] and COAPT CAS [COAPT]) for Abbott; served as study chair for the APOLLO trial (Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement With the Medtronic Intrepid TMVR System in Patients With Severe Symptomatic Mitral Regurgitation) for Medtronic (all activities unpaid). Dr Leon serves on the PARTNER Trial Executive Committee, Edwards Lifesciences (nonpaid), and reports institutional research grants and being a nonpaid advisor for Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Sinomed; and holds equity in Medinol. Dr Cohen reports research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic and consulting fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at low surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) results in lower rates of death, stroke, and rehospitalization at 1 year compared with surgical aortic valve replacement; however, the effect of treatment strategy on health status is unknown., Objectives: This study sought to compare health status outcomes of TAVR versus surgery in low-risk patients with severe AS., Methods: Between March 2016 and October 2017, 1,000 low-risk patients with AS were randomized to transfemoral TAVR using a balloon-expandable valve or surgery in the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial. Health status was assessed at baseline and 1, 6, and 12 months using the KCCQ (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire), SF-36 (Short Form-36 Health Survey), and EQ-5D (EuroQoL). The primary endpoint was change in KCCQ-OS (KCCQ Overall Summary) score over time. Longitudinal growth curve modeling was used to compare changes in health status between treatment groups over time., Results: At 1 month, TAVR was associated with better health status than surgery (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 16.0 points; p < 0.001). At 6 and 12 months, health status remained better with TAVR, although the effect was reduced (mean difference in KCCQ-OS 2.6 and 1.8 points respectively; p < 0.04 for both). The proportion of patients with an excellent outcome (alive with KCCQ-OS ≥75 and no significant decline from baseline) was greater with TAVR than surgery at 6 months (90.3% vs. 85.3%; p = 0.03) and 12 months (87.3% vs. 82.8%; p = 0.07)., Conclusions: Among low-risk patients with severe AS, TAVR was associated with meaningful early and late health status benefits compared with surgery., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar rates of death or stroke at 2 years. Whether TAVR is cost-effective compared with SAVR for intermediate-risk patients remains uncertain., Methods: Between 2011 and 2014, 3110 intermediate-risk AS patients were treated with TAVR or SAVR in the PARTNER 2 trial (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves 2). A total of 2032 patients were randomized to receive TAVR using the SAPIEN XT valve (XT-TAVR) or SAVR in the PARTNER 2A trial, whereas the PARTNER S3i registry included an additional 1078 patients treated with TAVR using the SAPIEN 3 valve (S3-TAVR), which offers a lower delivery profile and sealing skirt designed to reduce paravalvular regurgitation compared with XT-TAVR. Procedural costs were estimated using measured resource utilization. Other in-trial costs were assessed by linkage of trial data with Medicare claims (n=2333) or by linear regression models for unlinked patients (n=682). Health utilities were estimated using the EQ-5D at baseline and 1, 12, and 24 months. Using a Markov model informed by in-trial costs, utilities, and survival data, lifetime cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the US healthcare system was estimated in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained., Results: Although procedural costs were ≈$20 000 higher with TAVR than SAVR, total cost differences for the index hospitalization were only $2888 higher with XT-TAVR ( P=0.014) and were $4155 lower with S3-TAVR ( P<0.001) owing to reductions in length of stay with TAVR. Follow-up costs were significantly lower with XT-TAVR (Δ=-$9304; P<0.001) and S3-TAVR (Δ=-$11 377; P<0.001) than with SAVR. Over a lifetime horizon, TAVR was projected to lower total costs by $8000 to $10 000 and to increase quality-adjusted survival by 0.15 to 0.27 years. XT-TAVR and S3-TAVR were found to be economically dominant compared with SAVR in 84% and 97% of bootstrap replicates, respectively., Conclusions: Among intermediate-risk AS patients, TAVR is projected to be economically dominant from the perspective of the US healthcare system by providing both greater quality-adjusted life expectancy and lower long-term costs than SAVR. If long-term data demonstrate comparable late mortality with TAVR and SAVR, these findings suggest that TAVR might be the preferred treatment strategy for intermediate-risk AS patients based on both clinical and economic considerations., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01314313.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the SAPIEN 3 valve (S3-TAVR) results in improved quality of life (QoL) compared with previous-generation TAVR devices or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Background: In patients with severe aortic stenosis at intermediate surgical risk, TAVR using the SAPIEN XT valve (XT-TAVR) results in similar QoL compared with SAVR. Compared with SAPIEN XT, the SAPIEN 3 valve offers a lower delivery profile and modifications to reduce paravalvular regurgitation., Methods: Between February and December 2014, 1,078 patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis were treated with S3-TAVR in the PARTNER S3i (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve) trial. QoL was assessed at baseline, 1 month, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, and EQ-5D. QoL outcomes of S3-TAVR patients were compared with those in the SAVR and XT-TAVR arms of the PARTNER 2A trial using propensity score stratification to adjust for differences between the treatment groups., Results: Over 1 year, S3-TAVR was associated with substantial improvements in QoL compared with baseline. At 1 month, S3-TAVR was associated with better QoL than either SAVR or XT-TAVR (adjusted differences in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score 15.6 and 3.7 points, respectively; p < 0.001). At 1 year, the differences in QoL between S3-TAVR and both SAVR and XT-TAVR were reduced but remained statistically significant (adjusted differences 2.0 and 2.2 points, respectively; p < 0.05). Similar results were seen for generic QoL outcomes., Conclusions: Among patients at intermediate surgical risk with severe aortic stenosis, S3-TAVR resulted in improved QoL at both 1 month and 1 year compared with both XT-TAVR and SAVR., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: For patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at extreme surgical risk, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) leads to improved survival and health status when compared with medical therapy. Whether the early health status benefits of TAVR in these patients are sustained beyond 1 year of follow-up is unknown., Methods and Results: Six hundred thirty-nine patients with severe AS at extreme surgical risk underwent TAVR in the CoreValve US Extreme Risk Pivotal trial. Health status was evaluated at baseline and at 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Short-Form-12, and the EuroQoL-5D. Analyses were performed using pattern mixture models to account for both death and missing data and were stratified by iliofemoral (IF) and non-iliofemoral (non-IF) access. After TAVR, there was substantial health status improvement in disease-specific and generic scales by 6 to 12 months. Although there were small declines in health status after 12 months, the initial benefits of TAVR were largely sustained through 3 years for both IF and non-IF cohorts (change from baseline in KCCQ Overall Summary score 19.0 points in IF patients and 14.9 points in non-IF patients; P<.01 for both comparisons). Among surviving patients, clinically meaningful (≥10 point) improvements in the KCCQ Overall Summary Score at 3 years were observed in 85.0% and 83.4% of IF and non-IF patients respectively., Conclusions: Among extreme risk patients with severe AS, TAVR resulted in large initial health status benefits that were sustained through 3-year follow-up. Although late mortality was high in this population, these findings demonstrate that TAVR offers substantial and durable health status improvements for surviving patients., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) at intermediate surgical risk, treatment with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) results in similar 2-year survival. The effect of TAVR vs SAVR on health status in patients at intermediate surgical risk is unknown., Objective: To compare health-related quality of life among intermediate-risk patients with severe AS treated with either TAVR or SAVR., Design, Setting, and Participants: Between December 2011 and November 2013, 2032 intermediate-risk patients with severe AS were randomized to TAVR with the Sapien XT valve or SAVR in the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valve 2 Trial and were followed up for 2 years. Data analysis was conducted between March 1, 2016, to April 30, 2017., Main Outcomes and Measures: Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 1 year, and 2 years using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) (23 items covering physical function, social function, symptoms, self-efficacy and knowledge, and quality of life on a 0- to 100-point scale; higher scores indicate better quality of life), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (36 items covering 8 dimensions of health status as well as physical and mental summary scores; higher scores represent better health status), and EuroQOL-5D (assesses 5 dimensions of general health on a 3-level scale, with utility scores ranging from 0 [death] to 1 [ideal health]). Analysis of covariance was used to examine changes in health status over time, adjusting for baseline status., Results: Of the 2032 randomized patients, baseline health status was available for 1833 individuals (950 TAVR, 883 SAVR) who formed the primary analytic cohort. A total of 1006 (54.9%) of the population were men; mean (SD) age was 81.4 (6.8) years. Over 2 years, both TAVR and SAVR were associated with significant improvements in both disease specific (16-22 points on the KCCQ-OS scale) and generic health status (3.9-5.1 points on the SF-36 physical summary scale). At 1 month, TAVR was associated with better health status than SAVR, but this difference was restricted to patients treated via transfemoral access (mean difference in the KCCQ overall summary [KCCQ-OS] score, 14.1 points; 95% CI, 11.7 to 16.4; P < .01) and was not seen in patients treated via transthoracic access (mean difference in KCCQ-OS, 3.5 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 8.4; P < .01 for interaction). There were no significant differences between TAVR and SAVR in any health status measures at 1 or 2 years., Conclusions and Relevance: Among intermediate-risk patients with severe AS, health status improved significantly with both TAVR and SAVR through 2 years of follow up. Early health status improvement was greater with TAVR, but only among patients treated via transfemoral access. Longer term follow-up is needed to assess the durability of quality-of-life improvement with TAVR vs SAVR in this population., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01314313.

Background: Previous studies of the cost-effectiveness of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) have been based primarily on a single balloon-expandable system., Objectives: The goal of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with severe aortic stenosis and high surgical risk., Methods: We performed a formal economic analysis on the basis of individual, patient-level data from the CoreValve U.S. High Risk Pivotal Trial. Empirical data regarding survival and quality of life over 2 years, and medical resource use and hospital costs through 12 months were used to project life expectancy, quality-adjusted life expectancy, and lifetime medical costs in order to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of TAVR versus SAVR from a U.S., Results: Relative to SAVR, TAVR reduced initial length of stay an average of 4.4 days, decreased the need for rehabilitation services at discharge, and resulted in superior 1-month quality of life. Index admission and projected lifetime costs were higher with TAVR than with SAVR (differences $11,260 and $17,849 per patient, respectively), whereas TAVR was projected to provide a lifetime gain of 0.32 quality-adjusted life-years ([QALY]; 0.41 LY) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $55,090 per QALY gained and $43,114 per LY gained. Sensitivity analyses indicated that a reduction in the initial cost of TAVR by ∼$1,650 would lead to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50,000/QALY gained., Conclusions: In a high-risk clinical trial population, TAVR with a self-expanding prosthesis provided meaningful clinical benefits compared with SAVR, with incremental costs considered acceptable by current U.S., Standards: With expected modest reductions in the cost of index TAVR admissions, the value of TAVR compared with SAVR in this patient population would become high. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement [Medtronic CoreValve U.S. Pivotal Trial]; NCT01240902)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve (PARTNER) randomized controlled trial (RCT), which represented the first exposure to transapical transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TA-TAVR) for many clinical sites, high-risk patients undergoing TA-TAVR derived similar health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes when compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). With increasing experience, it is possible that HRQoL outcomes of TA-TAVR may have improved., Methods and Results: We evaluated HRQoL outcomes at 1-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups among 875 patients undergoing TA-TAVR in the PARTNER nonrandomized continued access (NRCA) registry and compared these outcomes with those of the TA-TAVR and SAVR patients in the PARTNER RCT. HRQoL was assessed with the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12, and the EuroQoL-5D, with the KCCQ overall summary score serving as the primary end point. The NRCA TA-TAVR and RCT TA-TAVR and SAVR groups were generally similar. The primary outcome, the KCCQ summary score, did not differ between the NRCA TA-TAVR and the RCT TA-TAVR group at any follow-up timepoints, although there were small differences in favor of the NRCA cohort on several KCCQ subscales at 1 month. There were no significant differences in follow-up HRQOL between the NRCA-TAVR and the RCT SAVR cohorts on the KCCQ overall summary scale or any of the disease-specific or generic subscales., Conclusions: Despite greater experience with TA-TAVR in the NRCA registry, HRQoL outcomes remained similar to those of TA-TAVR in the original RCT cohort and no better than those with SAVR. These findings have important implications for patient selection for TAVR when transfemoral access is not an option., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00530894., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to characterize health status outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with a self-expanding bioprosthesis among patients at extreme surgical risk and to identify pre-procedural patient characteristics associated with a poor outcome., Background: For many patients considering TAVR, improvement in quality of life may be of even greater importance than prolonged survival., Methods: Patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were considered to be at prohibitive risk for surgical aortic valve replacement were enrolled in the single-arm CoreValve U.S. Extreme Risk Study. Health status was assessed at baseline and at 1, 6, and 12 months after TAVR using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Short Form-12, and the EuroQol-5D. The overall summary scale of the KCCQ (range 0 to 100; higher scores = better health) was the primary health status outcome. A poor outcome after TAVR was defined as death, a KCCQ overall summary score (OS) <45, or a decline in KCCQ-OS of 10 points at 6-month follow-up., Results: A total of 471 patients underwent TAVR via the transfemoral approach, of whom 436 (93%) completed the baseline health status survey. All health status measures demonstrated considerable impairment at baseline. After TAVR, there was substantial improvement in both disease-specific and generic health status measures, with an increase in the KCCQ-OS of 23.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 20.3 to 27.5 points) at 1 month, 27.4 points (95% CI: 24.2 to 30.6 points) at 6 months, 27.4 points (95% CI: 24.1 to 30.8 points) at 12 months, along with substantial increases in Short Form-12 scores and EuroQol-5D utilities (all p < 0.003 compared with baseline). Nonetheless, 39% of patients had a poor outcome after TAVR. Baseline factors independently associated with poor outcome included wheelchair dependency, lower mean aortic valve gradient, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, oxygen dependency, very high predicted mortality with surgical aortic valve replacement, and low serum albumin., Conclusions: Among patients with severe aortic stenosis, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis resulted in substantial improvements in both disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life, but there remained a large minority of patients who died or had very poor quality of life despite TAVR. Predictive models based on a combination of clinical factors as well as disability and frailty may provide insight into the optimal patient population for whom TAVR is beneficial. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902)., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives This study sought to compare the health status outcomes for patients treated with either self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Background In patients at increased surgical risk, TAVR with a self-expanding bioprosthesis is associated with improved 1-year survival compared with AVR. However, elderly patients may be just as concerned with quality-of-life improvement as with prolonged survival as a goal of treatment. Methods Between 2011 and 2012, 795 patients with severe aortic stenosis at increased surgical risk were randomized to TAVR or AVR in the CoreValve US Pivotal Trial. Health status was assessed at baseline, 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 12 Questionnaire, and EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire; growth curve models were used to examine changes over time. Results Over the 1-year follow-up period, disease-specific and generic health status improved substantially for both treatment groups. At 1 month, there was a significant interaction between the benefit of TAVR over AVR and access site. Among surviving patients eligible for iliofemoral (IF) access, there was a clinically relevant early benefit with TAVR across all disease-specific and generic health status measures. Among the non-IF cohort, however, most health status measures were similar for TAVR and AVR, although there was a trend toward early benefit with TAVR on the Short-Form 12 Questionnaire’s physical health scale. There were no consistent differences in health status between TAVR and AVR at the later time points. Conclusions Health status improved substantially in surviving patients with increased surgical risk who were treated with either self-expanding TAVR or AVR. TAVR via the IF route was associated with better early health status compared with AVR, but there was no early health status benefit with non-IF TAVR compared with AVR. (Safety and Efficacy Study of the Medtronic CoreValve® System in the Treatment of Symptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis in High Risk and Very High Risk Subjects Who Need Aortic Valve Replacement; NCT01240902 ) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]