2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2014.12.109
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared with surgical replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis and comparable risk: Cost–utility and its determinants

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
14
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
3
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These estimates are nearly identical to those reported in the present study ($81,638 and $43,974 for TAVR and SAVR, respectively). More importantly, the results of the present cost analysis are similar to accumulating data that have challenged the cost effectiveness of TAVR for all patients meeting currently accepted clinical criteria [13][14][15][16][17]. Reynolds and colleagues [15] demonstrated that TAVR may not be a cost-effective strategy for all patients meeting PARTNER A trial criteria, especially those requiring transapical approaches (compared with transfemoral approaches).…”
Section: Commentsupporting
confidence: 68%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These estimates are nearly identical to those reported in the present study ($81,638 and $43,974 for TAVR and SAVR, respectively). More importantly, the results of the present cost analysis are similar to accumulating data that have challenged the cost effectiveness of TAVR for all patients meeting currently accepted clinical criteria [13][14][15][16][17]. Reynolds and colleagues [15] demonstrated that TAVR may not be a cost-effective strategy for all patients meeting PARTNER A trial criteria, especially those requiring transapical approaches (compared with transfemoral approaches).…”
Section: Commentsupporting
confidence: 68%
“…The principal results of the present study compare favorably with those reported from several other series and randomized controlled trials. Although several analyses examining the cost of TAVR versus SAVR exist in the literature, many of these analyses are limited in their ability to be extrapolated to the "real-world" application of TAVR within the United States because of the limitations of strict inclusion criteria of randomized controlled trials and high-risk surgical status or the performance of TAVR within other countries with different economic considerations and drivers of health care-related costs [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. As a result, conflicting evidence on the cost effectiveness of TAVR compared with SAVR exists in differing health care environments.…”
Section: Commentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Strategies such as MA-and fast-track TAVR continue to have a significant role in health economics in countries with higher hospitalization costs such as the United States. 17 A previous publication from our institution 7 demonstrated that the mean cost of MA-TAVR was approximately $10,000 less than standard TF-TAVR ($45,500 AE $14,400 vs $55,400 AE $22,600; P <.001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 78%
“…137 This higher cost would be even more pronounced in countries with lower healthcare costs where a high cost of the valve outweighs benefits of reducing the low-cost hospitalization and follow-up. 138 TAVI complications significantly increase the costs of the procedure. 139 In the PARTNER trial, periprocedural complications accounted for ≈25% of nonimplant-related hospital costs.…”
Section: Cost-effectiveness Issuesmentioning
confidence: 99%