No abstract

ObjectivesThe objective of this systematic review was to examine the existing evidence base for the cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit of clinical quality registries (CQRs).DesignSystematic review and narrative synthesis.Data sourcesNine electronic bibliographic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL, in the period from January 2000 to August 2019.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed published study or grey literature in English which had reported on an economic evaluation of one or more CQRs.Data extraction and synthesisData were screened, extracted and appraised by two independent reviewers. A narrative synthesis was performed around key attributes of each CQR and on key patient outcomes or changes to healthcare processes or utilisation. A narrative synthesis of the cost-effectiveness associated with CQRs was also conducted. The primary outcome was cost-effectiveness, in terms of the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), cost savings or return-on-investment (ROI) attributed to CQR implementation.ResultsThree studies and one government report met the inclusion criteria for the review. A study of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Programme (NSQIP) in the USA found that the cost-effectiveness of this registry improved over time, based on an ICER of US$8312 per postoperative event avoided. A separate study in Canada estimated the ROI to be US$3.43 per US$1.00 invested in the NSQIP. An evaluation of a post-splenectomy CQR in Australia estimated that registry cost-effectiveness improved from US$234 329 to US$18 358 per life year gained when considering the benefits accrued over the lifetime of the population. The government report evaluating five Australian CQRs estimated an overall return of 1.6–5.5 times the cost of investment.ConclusionsAvailable data indicate that CQRs can be cost-effective and can lead to significant returns on investment. It is clear that further studies that evaluate the economic and clinical impacts of CQRs are necessary.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018116807.

ObjectivesIn this study, we sought to evaluate the costs of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across a variety of indications in Victoria, Australia, using a direct per-person approach, as well as to identify key cost drivers.DesignA cost-burden study of PCI in Victoria was conducted from the Australian healthcare system perspective.SettingA linked dataset of patients admitted to public hospitals for PCI in Victoria was drawn from the Victorian Cardiac Outcomes Registry (VCOR) and the Victorian Admitted Episodes Dataset. Generalised linear regression modelling was used to evaluate key cost drivers. From 2014 to 2017, 20 345 consecutive PCIs undertaken in Victorian public hospitals were captured in VCOR.Primary outcome measuresDirect healthcare costs attributed to PCI, estimated using a casemix funding method.ResultsKey cost drivers identified in the cost model included procedural complexity, patient length of stay and vascular access site. Although the total procedural cost increased from $A55 569 740 in 2014 to $A72 179 656 in 2017, mean procedural costs remained stable over time ($A12 521 in 2014 to $A12 185 in 2017) after adjustment for confounding factors. Mean procedural costs were also stable across patient indications for PCI ($A9872 for unstable angina to $A15 930 for ST-elevation myocardial infarction) after adjustment for confounding factors.ConclusionsThe overall cost burden attributed to PCIs in Victoria is rising over time. However, despite increasing procedural complexity, mean procedural costs remained stable over time which may be, in part, attributed to changes in clinical practice.

No abstract

Background: Few studies have examined the safety and efficacy of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) for severe aortic stenosis (AS) in Australian patients. SOLACE-AU was a single-arm, openlabel clinical trial conducted in Australian hospitals to determine the safety, performance, and cost implications of TAVI in patients with severe, symptomatic AS at intermediate surgical risk. Methods: This was a prospective, pragmatic, single-arm, multi-center, observational trial of 199 patients with severe, symptomatic AS treated with transfemoral TAVI using the SAPIEN XT transcatheter heart valve (THV) at 11 hospitals in Australia. The primary outcome was Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2) criteriaa composite of seven safety endpoints. Kaplan-Meier (KM) estimates and descriptive analyses were used to evaluate the impact of transfemoral TAVI on safety and valve performance. We also evaluated patient health-related quality of life (QoL) and healthcare resources used throughout the trial. Results: The valve was successfully implanted in 88% of patients. The VARC-2 outcome at 30 days was 12.1% (95% CI: 8.3-17.5%), and almost 90% of patients had improved heart failure symptoms at 1 year based on New York Heart Association functional class criteria. Patient QoL remained stable over time, with mean EQ-5D-3L scores being 0.71 ± 0.20 at baseline and 0.71 ± 0.21 at 2 years. Duration of postprocedure hospitalization (mean: 6.9 ± 4.7 days) decreased as procedural familiarity increased. The median total cost of TAVI decreased 10.1% at 3 years after introduction of the procedure at the sites. Conclusions: The SOLACE-AU trial demonstrated favorable safety and performance of the SAPIEN XT valve in patients with AS at intermediate risk of surgical complications.