Keywords: Aortic stenosis; Economic evaluation; Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR); Treatment uptake; Value-for-money.
What is this summary about?This article summarizes an economic evaluation of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a treatment for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (SSAS). SSAS occurs when the aortic valve, which allows blood to leave the heart, becomes very narrow. This reduces blood flow to the body, causing symptoms like tiredness, chest pain, dizziness, or fainting. Treating SSAS requires replacing the valve. Untreated SSAS results in heart failure and death.Before TAVR, SSAS patients had two options, medical management and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Medical management helps with symptoms but does not replace the valve, leading patients to eventually die from SSAS. SAVR replaces the valve through open-heart surgery, which is invasive, involving making a large cut through the chest bone. Concerns about this invasiveness led many patients to avoid SAVR, leaving their SSAS untreated. TAVR was introduced in 2010. It is less invasive than SAVR, involving inserting a new valve through a small cut in the leg. TAVR has become popular and twice as many patients now undergo TAVR compared to SAVR.We measure TAVR’s net benefits as the value of its health benefits minus its healthcare costs. We measure these net benefits in three patient groups aged 65 and above in the United States. Group 1 patients are ineligible for SAVR, so TAVR is their only treatment option. Group 2 patients would have received SAVR if TAVR were not available. Group 3 patients are eligible for SAVR but concerned about its invasiveness, and so would have stayed untreated without TAVR.[Box: see text]What were the key takeaways?Net benefits per patient are significant in all groups, roughly equal in groups 1 and 2, and over six times larger in group 3. When net benefits are added up across patients, group 3’s total net benefit is 30 times larger than that of groups 1 and 2 combined.What are the main conclusions?Past studies ignored TAVR’s value in helping treat patients who might go untreated because of concerns over SAVR’s invasiveness. But this is TAVR’s largest value to SSAS patients. Our findings support continuing and increasing access to TAVR among SSAS patients, especially those who may go untreated because of concerns about invasive treatment.[Box: see text][Box: see text]Link to original article