Our data support a J-shaped relationship between mortality and BMI in patients with CAD. The limitation of current literature warrants better design of future studies.

Conflict is common in the care of patients with prolonged stays in the ICU. However, efforts to improve the quality of care for critically ill patients that focus on team-family disagreements over life-sustaining treatment miss significant discord in a variety of other areas.

Background Prior 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 (QOL) 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. perspective. 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 QOL. 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 (QALYs; 0.41 life-years [LYs]) with 3% discounting. Lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) 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 ICER <$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.